Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[The Rabbi]

1961 to 2012

Republican president job growth - 24 million jobs in 28 years.

Democratic president job growth - 42 million jobs in 24 years.

Bill Clinton says Democratic presidents top Republican presidents in job creation PolitiFact

and obama has reversed all that He now holds a lot a records
Most Food stamps usage
Lowest worker precipitation
Most golf games
biggest liar

Worst foreign policy on record
Most money spent on vacations.
Biggest swing from approval to disapproval

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course Bush & Clinton both had record numbers of people not in the labor force during their respective presidencies. Every president has...

LOL! Wow that graph just demonstrates it all. Chiefly it demonstrates you are a dimbuilb.

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Your graph show the percentages of people participating in the workforce in a given year. It does not show how many actually had jobs. Faun's graph shows the number of people who were in the workforce but were unemployed in a given year. The LPR and UE are two different things.

The forum jester lacks the brain power to discern the difference; which he managed to demonstrate most eloquently.

It's hard to decide who the biggest board fool is you or John Q?
OH what the hell it's a great day you both can hold the title.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry buba obama has a record low have not seen this since 1973 DON'T LIKE IT? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK YOU SUPPORTED THIS NOW DEAL WITH IT.

If it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.

It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomized

It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL! Wow that graph just demonstrates it all. Chiefly it demonstrates you are a dimbuilb.

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Your graph show the percentages of people participating in the workforce in a given year. It does not show how many actually had jobs. Faun's graph shows the number of people who were in the workforce but were unemployed in a given year. The LPR and UE are two different things.

The forum jester lacks the brain power to discern the difference; which he managed to demonstrate most eloquently.

It's hard to decide who the biggest board fool is you or John Q?
OH what the hell it's a great day you both can hold the title.

I think they're gay lovers. Or socks. Or something.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Complete and utter BULLSHIT! The GOP reform bill passed over Frank's objections in the GOP controlled House and the GOP controlled Senate killed the bill in committee. The GOP leader of the Senate, Bill Frist, refused to bring it to the floor for a vote because there were not enough Republican votes to pass it. The GOP and Bush only gave lip service to reform without ever going through with it. It was Speaker Pelosi who finally got a reform bill passed and signed!!!!!!

You stupid sack of shit.

Democraps blocked Bush's initiatives in Congress as a minority and majority party during his 8 years.....you stupid son of a bitch.

I'm done with a stupid fuck like you.....go kill yourself.

Oh, noooo, not the Barney video....

Imbecile. Barney Frank was a member of the minority party. He wasn't the one in charge of setting policies. Republicans were.

My goodness, you fruit loop dinguses have no fucking clue. Well here's another clue for ya...

Thanks to OUR POLICIES, home ownership in America is at an all time high." - George Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech ​

Exactly whose "policies" does your rightarded brain think Bush was crediting when he said, "OURS?" Bill Clinton's policies? Jimmy Carter's policies???

You really are too fucking stupid to know what happened. i.e., a typical Conservative.

\The only bull shit is the vial that you spew out. It's so fucking funny that you actually believe your own bull shit and expect the rest of us to agree YOU DUMB FUCK
May 31, 1999 that:
Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical,
Minorities Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites - Los Angeles Times

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.“

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Your graph show the percentages of people participating in the workforce in a given year. It does not show how many actually had jobs. Faun's graph shows the number of people who were in the workforce but were unemployed in a given year. The LPR and UE are two different things.

The forum jester lacks the brain power to discern the difference; which he managed to demonstrate most eloquently.

It's hard to decide who the biggest board fool is you or John Q?
OH what the hell it's a great day you both can hold the title.

I think they're gay lovers. Or socks. Or something.

OK they can hold the title of board QUEENS I guess ed the liar can keep his title of board fool.

 

[Faun]

Of course Bush & Clinton both had record numbers of people not in the labor force during their respective presidencies. Every president has...

LOL! Wow that graph just demonstrates it all. Chiefly it demonstrates you are a dimbuilb.

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Poor, forum jester. Yes, the graph I posted shows a record number of people out of the labor force during each administration going as far back as the data goes. That was in response to the other rightard who suddenly cares the number is up to a record high 92 million.

Did you really think your understanding of that is a requirement to show it's true?

Really??

Your graph showed no such thing. I am waiting for you to explain what you think it actually shows. And why you think that is important.

You're an imbecile, Jester. You didn't understand the first 2 times it was explained so there is no reason to explain it again since you've proven you're just not bright enough to get it. Others get it even though you can't. That's good enough for me.

 

[Faun]

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Your graph show the percentages of people participating in the workforce in a given year. It does not show how many actually had jobs. Faun's graph shows the number of people who were in the workforce but were unemployed in a given year. The LPR and UE are two different things.

The forum jester lacks the brain power to discern the difference; which he managed to demonstrate most eloquently.

It's hard to decide who the biggest board fool is you or John Q?
OH what the hell it's a great day you both can hold the title.

I think they're gay lovers. Or socks. Or something.

As soon as you said, "I think, you revealed you are full of shit. Therefore, it's no great surprise that which followed is also demented.

 

[pinqy]

It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Of course Bush & Clinton both had record numbers of people not in the labor force during their respective presidencies. Every president has...

LOL! Wow that graph just demonstrates it all. Chiefly it demonstrates you are a dimbuilb.

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Are you not understanding the difference between level and rate? Faun's graph shows a steady increase in the number of people not in the labor force...a "new record" for every President.

Your graph shows the Labor Force Participation RATE: the percent of the population in the labor force. It has been going down since 2000.

In short: As the population grew from 1948 to 2000, both those in the labor force and those not in the labor force increased, but in the labor force increased faster, causing the participation rate to increase.

Since 2000, the number Not in the Labor Force has increased faster than those in the Labor Force (especially considering the drop in the labor force level due to the recession) and so the participation rate has dropped.

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL! Wow that graph just demonstrates it all. Chiefly it demonstrates you are a dimbuilb.

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Poor, forum jester. Yes, the graph I posted shows a record number of people out of the labor force during each administration going as far back as the data goes. That was in response to the other rightard who suddenly cares the number is up to a record high 92 million.

Did you really think your understanding of that is a requirement to show it's true?

Really??

Your graph showed no such thing. I am waiting for you to explain what you think it actually shows. And why you think that is important.

You're an imbecile, Jester. You didn't understand the first 2 times it was explained so there is no reason to explain it again since you've proven you're just not bright enough to get it. Others get it even though you can't. That's good enough for me.

Translation: I dont understand it myself.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Of course Bush & Clinton both had record numbers of people not in the labor force during their respective presidencies. Every president has...

LOL! Wow that graph just demonstrates it all. Chiefly it demonstrates you are a dimbuilb.

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Are you not understanding the difference between level and rate? Faun's graph shows a steady increase in the number of people not in the labor force...a "new record" for every President.

Your graph shows the Labor Force Participation RATE: the percent of the population in the labor force. It has been going down since 2000.

In short: As the population grew from 1948 to 2000, both those in the labor force and those not in the labor force increased, but in the labor force increased faster, causing the participation rate to increase.

Since 2000, the number Not in the Labor Force has increased faster than those in the Labor Force (especially considering the drop in the labor force level due to the recession) and so the participation rate has dropped.

I dont know what his graph shows. It doesnt appear to show anything as there is no context whatsoever.
Assuming you are correct, so what? The key fact is more people are opting out of working. That is likely due to a bad economy failing to attract people into the job force. It is likely because following every other recession the UE rate blipped up as people previously not looking for work suddenly entered the workforce. Tht didnt happen this time and the reason is poor prospecs. Because this is the worst administration in history for the economy and its policies are complete failures.

 

[Faun]

It demonstrates what was said here, which is clearly too complex for your limited comprehension ... that every president had more people who were not in the labor force than any previous president going as far back as the data allows.

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Poor, forum jester. Yes, the graph I posted shows a record number of people out of the labor force during each administration going as far back as the data goes. That was in response to the other rightard who suddenly cares the number is up to a record high 92 million.

Did you really think your understanding of that is a requirement to show it's true?

Really??

Your graph showed no such thing. I am waiting for you to explain what you think it actually shows. And why you think that is important.

You're an imbecile, Jester. You didn't understand the first 2 times it was explained so there is no reason to explain it again since you've proven you're just not bright enough to get it. Others get it even though you can't. That's good enough for me.

Translation: I dont understand it myself.

Who knows how your deformed brain translated my words into that conclusion? But suffice it to say, I get it ... several others here expressed they get it ... the problem appears to be with you, Jester. You're just too stupid to get it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It actually doesn't demonstrate that. Nor is the assertion true.

Here's a graph of the workforce participation rate. Note that it goes up from 1970 to about 1990, then starts to decline. After 2008 it declines more severely.
People entered the labor force because they perceived job opportunities. They left for pretty much the opposite reason. Under Obama there is hardly any incentive to work at all.

Poor, forum jester. Yes, the graph I posted shows a record number of people out of the labor force during each administration going as far back as the data goes. That was in response to the other rightard who suddenly cares the number is up to a record high 92 million.

Did you really think your understanding of that is a requirement to show it's true?

Really??

Your graph showed no such thing. I am waiting for you to explain what you think it actually shows. And why you think that is important.

You're an imbecile, Jester. You didn't understand the first 2 times it was explained so there is no reason to explain it again since you've proven you're just not bright enough to get it. Others get it even though you can't. That's good enough for me.

Translation: I dont understand it myself.

Who knows how your deformed brain translated my words into that conclusion? But suffice it to say, I get it ... several others here expressed they get it ... the problem appears to be with you, Jester. You're just too stupid to get it.

I didnt take courses in special ed so I have a hard time understanding anything you write.

 

[Faun]

Poor, forum jester. Yes, the graph I posted shows a record number of people out of the labor force during each administration going as far back as the data goes. That was in response to the other rightard who suddenly cares the number is up to a record high 92 million.

Did you really think your understanding of that is a requirement to show it's true?

Really??

Your graph showed no such thing. I am waiting for you to explain what you think it actually shows. And why you think that is important.

You're an imbecile, Jester. You didn't understand the first 2 times it was explained so there is no reason to explain it again since you've proven you're just not bright enough to get it. Others get it even though you can't. That's good enough for me.

Translation: I dont understand it myself.

Who knows how your deformed brain translated my words into that conclusion? But suffice it to say, I get it ... several others here expressed they get it ... the problem appears to be with you, Jester. You're just too stupid to get it.

I didnt take courses in special ed so I have a hard time understanding anything you write.

It's funny watching you protest while you demonstrate you're the only one who doesn't get it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your graph showed no such thing. I am waiting for you to explain what you think it actually shows. And why you think that is important.

You're an imbecile, Jester. You didn't understand the first 2 times it was explained so there is no reason to explain it again since you've proven you're just not bright enough to get it. Others get it even though you can't. That's good enough for me.

Translation: I dont understand it myself.

Who knows how your deformed brain translated my words into that conclusion? But suffice it to say, I get it ... several others here expressed they get it ... the problem appears to be with you, Jester. You're just too stupid to get it.

I didnt take courses in special ed so I have a hard time understanding anything you write.

It's funny watching you protest while you demonstrate you're the only one who doesn't get it.

Yawn.
When you have something beyond personal insults, fallacies, and mere assertions get back to me. In the meantime bring me a coffee.

 

[edthecynic]

If it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.

It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomized

It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

 

[Faun]

You're an imbecile, Jester. You didn't understand the first 2 times it was explained so there is no reason to explain it again since you've proven you're just not bright enough to get it. Others get it even though you can't. That's good enough for me.

Translation: I dont understand it myself.

Who knows how your deformed brain translated my words into that conclusion? But suffice it to say, I get it ... several others here expressed they get it ... the problem appears to be with you, Jester. You're just too stupid to get it.

I didnt take courses in special ed so I have a hard time understanding anything you write.

It's funny watching you protest while you demonstrate you're the only one who doesn't get it.

Yawn.
When you have something beyond personal insults, fallacies, and mere assertions get back to me. In the meantime bring me a coffee.

Cries the forum jester who just talked about "special ed classes." Why don't you follow your own advice? Meanwhile, you remain the only one here who doesn't understand how the chart I posted reflects the stated position of myself and others.

 

[Faun]

It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomized

It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

As the chart, which the forum jester can't understand, shows.

 

[edthecynic]

Complete and utter BULLSHIT! The GOP reform bill passed over Frank's objections in the GOP controlled House and the GOP controlled Senate killed the bill in committee. The GOP leader of the Senate, Bill Frist, refused to bring it to the floor for a vote because there were not enough Republican votes to pass it. The GOP and Bush only gave lip service to reform without ever going through with it. It was Speaker Pelosi who finally got a reform bill passed and signed!!!!!!

You stupid sack of shit.

Democraps blocked Bush's initiatives in Congress as a minority and majority party during his 8 years.....you stupid son of a bitch.

I'm done with a stupid fuck like you.....go kill yourself.

Oh, noooo, not the Barney video....

Imbecile. Barney Frank was a member of the minority party. He wasn't the one in charge of setting policies. Republicans were.

My goodness, you fruit loop dinguses have no fucking clue. Well here's another clue for ya...

Thanks to OUR POLICIES, home ownership in America is at an all time high." - George Bush, 2004 RNC acceptance speech ​

Exactly whose "policies" does your rightarded brain think Bush was crediting when he said, "OURS?" Bill Clinton's policies? Jimmy Carter's policies???

You really are too fucking stupid to know what happened. i.e., a typical Conservative.

\The only bull shit is the vial that you spew out. It's so fucking funny that you actually believe your own bull shit and expect the rest of us to agree YOU DUMB FUCK
May 31, 1999 that:
Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical,
Minorities Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites - Los Angeles Times

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.“

From your own link it says a down payment is still required and their credit must still be good, just a notch lower than the good credit that was previously acceptable.

But Bush's ADDI made loans to borrowers with BAD credit, with NO down payment, for more than the house was worth. Bush burst the housing bubble!

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

As the chart, which the forum jester can't understand, shows.

Chart shows nothing. The only thing is shows is you can't read a chart.