US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond fucking clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a fucking indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some fucking thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

You're fucking deranged. The labor force participation rate measures demographics, not the health of the job market. It's lower now than it was in 2001, for the most part, because people are choosing not to work.

It grew in the sixties and seventies when many more blacks chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It went up again in the seventies and eighties as more women chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It began dropping in 2000 as more people began choosing to not work. That was due to demographics. That drop increased in rate in 2008 as Baby Boomers began hitting retirement age. That was due to demographics. There are many factors which drive the labor force participation rate, but mostly, it's people choosing on whether to work or not.

If it were an indicator of the job market, it would have dropped during Reagan's recession. It didn't. In fact it increased from 63.7% to 64.2% even as 2.7 million jobs were lost.

July, 1981 through November, 1982, we are mired in a deep recession. In terms of the job market, 2.7 million jobs were lost; the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 7.5% to 10.8% .... but imbeciles like you think the job markets were just peachy because the labor force participate rate went up.

 

[Dale Smith]

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond fucking clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a fucking indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some fucking thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

Faun is one of the more...amusing...characters on this forum.

Really, me boy, personal attacks all you have left?? Truth is, he is less amusing than you, in my humble but correct opinion.

Your posts are neither amusing nor informative....not even accidentally and you don't know much which is why you avoid me......good choice.

 

[Faun]

[
It's wrong not to count people who are employed as unemployed? I'm not getting why you think people who have jobs should be considered unemployed.

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

You're joking, right? If you are that clueless, how can you make any posts on a thread about economics?

Lemme guess.... you're of the ilk who believe ad hominem really is a substantive substitute for actual argument?

Anything but answer the question, right?

Since you failed there, maybe you can take a stab at ..... prove that most of the 12 million people added to the 'not in labor force' group since Obama's did so for reasons other than choice....

 

[sealybobo]

Did you miss the part where Bush warned that lax lending standards were creating a dangerous situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and needed to be fixed...only to be scoffed at by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd? So who was right...W...or Frank and Dodd?

Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....

[cue the Barney song...]

So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem? Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.

I never denied Bush warned Congress.

Now then, about my question which you intentionally avoided answering....

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Show me how the Congress was "Republican led" when Bush made those statements!

Sorry, but I can't teach you something as basic as knowing Republicans controlled the House in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006; and the Senate in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the first half of 2001 -- the year Bush first began warning the Congress that reform of the GSEs was needed.

So for a third time, since you avoided answering twice now...

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Tom delay George w bush and Dennis hastert fucked us good.

 

[Dale Smith]

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond fucking clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a fucking indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some fucking thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

You're fucking deranged. The labor force participation rate measures demographics, not the health of the job market. It's lower now than it was in 2001, for the most part, because people are choosing not to work.

It grew in the sixties and seventies when many more blacks chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It went up again in the seventies and eighties as more women chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It began dropping in 2000 as more people began choosing to not work. That was due to demographics. That drop increased in rate in 2008 as Baby Boomers began hitting retirement age. That was due to demographics. There are many factors which drive the labor force participation rate, but mostly, it's people choosing on whether to work or not.

If it were an indicator of the job market, it would have dropped during Reagan's recession. It didn't. In fact it increased from 63.7% to 64.2% even as 2.7 million jobs were lost.

July, 1981 through November, 1982, we are mired in a deep recession. In terms of the job market, 2.7 million jobs were lost; the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 7.5% to 10.8% .... but imbeciles like you think the job markets were just peachy because the labor force participate rate went up.

Obviously you were not able to comprehend or understand a single word I posted...too many multi-syllable words for you to digest? It would'nt matter if 100 percent of the people were employed if they do not have enough to eek out a living. Blue collar jobs were shipped overseas, environmental laws of the most draconian type were put in place which was just fine for USA.INC because when they passed them into one of their acts, statutes or codes? They just shipped the jobs overseas by passing unfair "fair trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT while beating down corporations that they didn't own with more rules and regulations until they sold out and their companies became a subsidiary of this massive conglomerate....shit...there I go again...talking in words that you don't understand or concepts and truth that you can't even wrap your tiny mind around......carry on...sheeesh.

 

[Dale Smith]

Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....

[cue the Barney song...]

So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem? Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.

I never denied Bush warned Congress.

Now then, about my question which you intentionally avoided answering....

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Show me how the Congress was "Republican led" when Bush made those statements!

Sorry, but I can't teach you something as basic as knowing Republicans controlled the House in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006; and the Senate in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the first half of 2001 -- the year Bush first began warning the Congress that reform of the GSEs was needed.

So for a third time, since you avoided answering twice now...

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Tom delay George w bush and Dennis hastert fucked us good.

Both parties (which are really just one at the very top) have fucked us over because they didn't have the guts to stand up for the people. I am sure that they were compromised....hell, I know that Hastert was...the powers that be knew that he had "diddled" his students long before he ever got into politics and rose so quickly through the ranks. Barney Frank? Totally compromised.....hell, I would say that 99 percent of everyone in Congress have skeletons in their closets or they wouldn't be where they are.

 

[sealybobo]

Well, for starters...we need to gradually raise interest rates to something sane. I say that for two reasons. First of all it will give us a real idea of how strong the economy really is...but more importantly...if we do have another financial crisis we'll have that tool (lowering interest rates) to combat it. As it stands right now...if we have another recession...our "quiver" of economic arrows to address that is basically empty. All we've done for the past eight years is artificially prop up the stock market which allowed wealthy people who had credit to invest with to make a fortune. You want to know why there is such "inequality" between the wealthy and the Lower Class? It's because of things like what the Fed has done with interest rates. Poor people didn't gain from the stock market rebound...wealthy people sure as heck did!

Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

Okay.

Reagan's GDP his last year in office was 7

Reagan's Unemployment rate was 5.5%, down from a maximum of 9.7%

Labor Participation Rate was 65.8% in April of 1988 and it is 63.0% under the failed administration of Lame Duck President Obama.

Any way you want to describe it, President Obama's economy is another Carter malaise compared to that of President Reagan.

More?

Illegal immigration and NAFTA and breaking unions and outsourcing all started when the rich won the white house in 1980. Reagan seemed good at the time but little did people know bushanomics for started in Reaganomics. And Reagan would be a moderate Democrat today

 

[Rshermr]

Google it.

And thanks Obama.

If a Republican were in the white house conservatives wouldn't be making excuses for the people who've given up

I've got a cookie for the first Progressive on this board that can name the Obama policies that created jobs in America! He hasn't had a plan to fix the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left YEARS AGO! Thanks Obama? That's farce of the highest order...

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Me poor ignorant con tool. Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory. Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea. Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save. Not increase production. Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit. Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008. There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions. And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do. According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value. But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan. You know the drill by now, dipshit. Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%. Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct. But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt. Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works. Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.

 

[sealybobo]

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond fucking clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a fucking indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some fucking thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

You're fucking deranged. The labor force participation rate measures demographics, not the health of the job market. It's lower now than it was in 2001, for the most part, because people are choosing not to work.

It grew in the sixties and seventies when many more blacks chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It went up again in the seventies and eighties as more women chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It began dropping in 2000 as more people began choosing to not work. That was due to demographics. That drop increased in rate in 2008 as Baby Boomers began hitting retirement age. That was due to demographics. There are many factors which drive the labor force participation rate, but mostly, it's people choosing on whether to work or not.

If it were an indicator of the job market, it would have dropped during Reagan's recession. It didn't. In fact it increased from 63.7% to 64.2% even as 2.7 million jobs were lost.

July, 1981 through November, 1982, we are mired in a deep recession. In terms of the job market, 2.7 million jobs were lost; the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 7.5% to 10.8% .... but imbeciles like you think the job markets were just peachy because the labor force participate rate went up.

Obviously you were not able to comprehend or understand a single word I posted...too many multi-syllable words for you to digest? It would'nt matter if 100 percent of the people were employed if they do not have enough to eek out a living. Blue collar jobs were shipped overseas, environmental laws of the most draconian type were put in place which was just fine for USA.INC because when they passed them into one of their acts, statutes or codes? They just shipped the jobs overseas by passing unfair "fair trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT while beating down corporations that they didn't own with more rules and regulations until they sold out and their companies became a subsidiary of this massive conglomerate....shit...there I go again...talking in words that you don't understand or concepts and truth that you can't even wrap your tiny mind around......carry on...sheeesh.

You sound like a liberal to me

 

[Faun]

Great, now show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings....

[cue the Barney song...]

So you admit that Bush did indeed warn Congress that there was a problem? Pass that nugget along to Rshermr...that buffoon is clueless as usual.

I never denied Bush warned Congress.

Now then, about my question which you intentionally avoided answering....

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Show me how the Congress was "Republican led" when Bush made those statements!

Sorry, but I can't teach you something as basic as knowing Republicans controlled the House in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006; and the Senate in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and the first half of 2001 -- the year Bush first began warning the Congress that reform of the GSEs was needed.

So for a third time, since you avoided answering twice now...

Show me the bill passed by the Republican-led Congress to address Bush's warnings...

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

White House News

Setting the Record Straight

In Focus: Economy

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

Your fellow yahoo wouldn't answer ... maybe I'll have better luck with you (not really expecting to, though)....

Bush first raised the issue in April of 2001. Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress at the time. A few months later, the lost control of the Senate when Jeffords switched parties but still maintained control of the House for the remainder of 2001 and all of 2002. Republicans regained control of both chambers for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

That's 6 years of control of the Executive branch.

6 years of control of the House of Representatives.

And 4½ years of control of the Senate.

Most of that time while the housing markets were ballooning out of control....

Now here's the test, which you are programmed to fail.....

Show me the GSE reform bill(s) those Republican-led Congresses passed.........

 

[Markle]

Numbers are great. But, I deal in reality. If the economy was in good shape, it would not be the primary concern of many Americans going into the November elections, and Obama's ratings would be comparable to what Reagan had when he ran for his second term.

Why is it that unemployment is down but so many Americans feel like our economy is floundering?

Apparently, the unemployment rate doesn't tell the whole story.

Mark

Of course unemployment is only part of the picture. But unemployment is way down under Obama. So while there are still problems with the economy, unemployment isn't one of them as we are now at full employment.

Of course, you know you are wrong so why do you make such false statements? You might consider chucking the Kool Aid!

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat. Notice the plunge since Lame Duck President Obama took office.

You are in way over your head, me boy. The labor participation rate dropping 3% is not much of a problem normally, but economists have told us to expect it to drop and it did. And partially for reasons of the general economy. You seem to be insinuating it happened because a democratic president took over. But the truth, me boy, is that the downturn coincided with the great republican recession of 2008. Which caused a whole lot of unemployment as well as a large number of workers discouraged by same and waiting for improvement. Really, me boy, pretty obvious. Then, there was this other factor apparently you missed. Which was a whole large number of folks in the baby boom retiring early. Then, me poor ignorant tool, there were the results of being able to afford insurance outside of work under ACA. So, me boy, quit spreading gloom and doom about participation rates. Rather ignorant of you.
Oh, by the way, if you look at the rates at this time, you will find them improving. Must be Obama's influence, eh?????

Son, you are amusing.

Please show us where a THREE PERCENT DROP in the Labor Participation Rate has been normal.

Lame Duck President Obama gutted the 1996 Welfare Reform Act between the "Stimulus" package and Obamacare.

Progressives, like yourself, need to operate in a static economy. It is the only way they can con people into believing their malarkey.

You make a statement about baby boomers leaving the labor market is the cause of the Labor Participation Rate dropping so precipitously. What you, and other Progressives intentionally "ignore" is the FACT, that millions of 16-year-olds ENTER the Labor Market every year as the baby boomers retire.
I know...oops! Forgot that didn't you son?

 

[sealybobo]

I've got a cookie for the first Progressive on this board that can name the Obama policies that created jobs in America! He hasn't had a plan to fix the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left YEARS AGO! Thanks Obama? That's farce of the highest order...

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Me poor ignorant con tool. Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory. Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea. Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save. Not increase production. Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit. Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008. There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions. And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do. According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value. But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan. You know the drill by now, dipshit. Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%. Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct. But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt. Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works. Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.

But supply side does work. For them. But not small business owners because they only make money when we all have money. So why do they think they are Republicans. Bush shipped demand overseas.

 

[sealybobo]

I've got a cookie for the first Progressive on this board that can name the Obama policies that created jobs in America! He hasn't had a plan to fix the economy or create jobs since Larry Summers left YEARS AGO! Thanks Obama? That's farce of the highest order...

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Me poor ignorant con tool. Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory. Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea. Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save. Not increase production. Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit. Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008. There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions. And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do. According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value. But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan. You know the drill by now, dipshit. Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%. Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct. But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt. Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works. Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.

Republicans don't have a problem raising our taxes. If they cut taxes on the rich they tell us they don't have any money to pay for infrastructure and have to raise our taxes. I know Rick Snyder did this and so has every other Republican governor.

When Republicans say lower taxes they ALWAYS mean for the rich

 

[Markle]

Of course you don't because you're like Obama using the US Labor statistics as straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories. If you consider a person working only 8 hours a week as being employed at a Temp agency, then you're as delusional as Obama who thinks ISIS is contained. Librat gov. throw the people a crumb and call this a victory. Shame!

When the unemployment rate was 5% while Bush was president, how come you righties weren't accusing Bush of using that stat as a straw man fallacy to celebrate false victories? How come none of you said then that an unemployment rate of 5% is a lie, that the actual unemployment rate was as high as 20% to 40%?

Simple...

Answer to all your questions. Labor Participation Rate 1974 through March 2016. Need I explain it to you?

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

You're joking, right? If you are that clueless, how can you make any posts on a thread about economics?

Lemme guess.... you're of the ilk who believe ad hominem really is a substantive substitute for actual argument?

Anything but answer the question, right?

Since you failed there, maybe you can take a stab at ..... prove that most of the 12 million people added to the 'not in labor force' group since Obama's did so for reasons other than choice....

I answered that question.

 

[Faun]

I'll ask again since you won't answer....

So what?

What difference does it make if that number is 62% or 63% or 64%? What exactly do you think that figure represents in terms of the health of the job market?

Dude, you are beyond fucking clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a fucking indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some fucking thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

You're fucking deranged. The labor force participation rate measures demographics, not the health of the job market. It's lower now than it was in 2001, for the most part, because people are choosing not to work.

It grew in the sixties and seventies when many more blacks chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It went up again in the seventies and eighties as more women chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It began dropping in 2000 as more people began choosing to not work. That was due to demographics. That drop increased in rate in 2008 as Baby Boomers began hitting retirement age. That was due to demographics. There are many factors which drive the labor force participation rate, but mostly, it's people choosing on whether to work or not.

If it were an indicator of the job market, it would have dropped during Reagan's recession. It didn't. In fact it increased from 63.7% to 64.2% even as 2.7 million jobs were lost.

July, 1981 through November, 1982, we are mired in a deep recession. In terms of the job market, 2.7 million jobs were lost; the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 7.5% to 10.8% .... but imbeciles like you think the job markets were just peachy because the labor force participate rate went up.

Obviously you were not able to comprehend or understand a single word I posted...too many multi-syllable words for you to digest? It would'nt matter if 100 percent of the people were employed if they do not have enough to eek out a living. Blue collar jobs were shipped overseas, environmental laws of the most draconian type were put in place which was just fine for USA.INC because when they passed them into one of their acts, statutes or codes? They just shipped the jobs overseas by passing unfair "fair trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT while beating down corporations that they didn't own with more rules and regulations until they sold out and their companies became a subsidiary of this massive conglomerate....shit...there I go again...talking in words that you don't understand or concepts and truth that you can't even wrap your tiny mind around......carry on...sheeesh.

That you think toying with strawman arguments works for you speaks volumes. As before, you are arguing something other than what I am arguing. I have said nothing about the quality of jobs.I am talking about the health of the job market, which is at full employment; and the idiocies spouted how the labor force participation is the new unemployment indicator in place of the unemployment rate.

You have your own personal agenda, which at this time, interests me not. You're obviously welcome to spew your logorrhea to your heart's content. I shall do nothing more than remind you it has little, if anything, to do with what I'm talking about.

 

[edthecynic]

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.

That means you are a stupid DittoTard mindlessly parroting a Limbaugh Lie.

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

I provided the FACTS and the link. What was difficult for you to understand? I'll be happy to explain it to you.

You provided no facts and no link. All you did was parrot your MessiahRushie's lies.

 

[Markle]

I got a job because of an Obama policy. It gave companies a tax write off if they hired the unemployed. No payroll tax. So this company hired 20 new salespeople.

Where's my cookie?

What's laughable is that you think that Obama policy created jobs, Sealy! Oh, it was supposed to...but like most of Obama's economic policies...it didn't take into account how businesses really operate. The fact of the matter is the tax write off you refer to DIDN'T create a net gain in job creation! It did however allow some business owners to claim a tax write off for employees they would have hired anyway but because that benefit only took place after a year had passed most companies that were not flush with cash couldn't take advantage of it even if they would have liked to have done so.

You guys have a spin on everything.

1. Yes it did create jobs. It encouraged companies that wouldn't have hired a couple extra employees to hire them.

2. But lets say you are right, which in a way you are. Thank you for admitting that giving corporations more tax breaks won't create jobs.

So I'll conceed you are right. But that means we were right all along. We told you giving companies tax breaks doesn't mean they will create more jobs. The only thing that creates more jobs is more demand.

What creates more jobs is the anticipation of profit. Demand? If there is no profit to be made from satisfying demand then the Private Sector won't create a business or jobs to do so. Giving companies tax breaks does one thing and one thing only...it makes it more likely that profits will be made and kept...and THAT is what induces the Private Sector to create jobs.

You liberals don't have a clue how business and economics work...yet think you do...you pass idiotic legislation that won't grow the economy or create jobs and then whine about how "evil corporations" won't cooperate with what you're trying to do!

As for whether I'm "right" or not? You know I am because economic growth has been tepid at best. If it wasn't for the cost of gasoline and natural gas being as low as it is right now (none of which Barack Obama is responsible for!) economic growth would be almost non existent.

Me poor ignorant con tool. Lets take your theory and wash it against history (you claim to be a history major, correct?) and theory. Theory first.
So you are still trying to say supply side economics works, when almost all economists have found it a bad idea. Because if you lower taxes, all that companies do with the savings is save. Not increase production. Your assumption is that in a recession, with aggregate demand down, and therefor inventory not selling, that the corporation is so stupid that it will increase production and therefor inventory and therefor cost and therefor reduced profit. Really way to simple to miss.
Historically, we could look at the stimulus and the great republican recession of 2008. There were several components of the stimulus, the one pushed by repubs being tax reductions. And a fair number of those tax reductions were targeted at the more well to do. According to the CBO, those tax reductions had little to no stimulus value. But we can assume they made the wealthy quite happy.
Then there was R. Reagan. You know the drill by now, dipshit. Huge tax decreases produced the highest unemployment rates since the great republican depression of 1929. That was, me boy, 10;8%. Now, since RR had been a huge proponent of supply side policies, one would assume he would pursue those policies, correct. But..../NO, he raised taxes 11 times to generate revenue for spending and spent more than all of the presidents before him combined, nearly trippled the national debt, and greatly increased the size of the national debt. Proving, of course, that while Supply Side does not work, stimulus does!!!!
Which is why, me boy, we can be certain that supply side economics never, ever works. Even as a paid con tool, it should be obvious to you.

Republicans don't have a problem raising our taxes. If they cut taxes on the rich they tell us they don't have any money to pay for infrastructure and have to raise our taxes. I know Rick Snyder did this and so has every other Republican governor.

When Republicans say lower taxes they ALWAYS mean for the rich

Wow...you really do chug down that Kool Aid as fast as the Progressives spew it out don't you?

 

[Markle]

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.

That means you are a stupid DittoTard mindlessly parroting a Limbaugh Lie.

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

I provided the FACTS and the link. What was difficult for you to understand? I'll be happy to explain it to you.

You provided no facts and no link. All you did was parrot your MessiahRushie's lies.

Let me get this straight. You need a LINK to prove to you that millions of young people are turning 16 and entering the labor market. WOW! You are amusing!

 

[sealybobo]

Dude, you are beyond fucking clueless....seriously....it staggers the mind.

If that were true, you would have answered the question. The reality is, you can't answer the question because the labor force participation rate os not an indicator of the health of the job market. If it were, then the lower labor force participation rate in the 1950's would mean that the job market today is better than it was then. And that simply is not true, not when the unemployment rate at times in the 50's was half of what it is now.

Not a fucking indicator? You have 101 MILLION people on some type of government subsidy while taking in illegals and providing them with entitlements. What few jobs that are out there don't pay shit. 38 percent of the populace that even has a job make less than 20K a year...you think that is good? Get out of your little bubble and go to the poor side of town and look at the misery and poverty going on and it doesn't have to be this way. USA.INC is sitting on over 100 TRILLION dollars in wealth that they have accrued by skimming off the top and investing and re-investing at the expense of decent blue collar jobs ever since the Bretton Woods agreement. This isn't a left versus right thing so stop defending that POS CEO of this corporate entity and those on the right need to stop throwing up Reagan as some great icon because he was aware of this debt slavery system.

Those in power love this kind of shit....having us scream "It's the demcrat's fault"....then the other side is screaming "It's the neocon's fault!!!" like a bunch of stupid, ignorant idiots that can't see that the body in the middle controls the leftwing and the rightwing. How much longer are you going to keep doing the some fucking thing over and over and never getting a different result??? This bullshit of "We are just one election cycle away from making things right" is pure insanity. Until you understand the root of the problem, you are simply putting a band aid on a fatal wound. You want REAL change? Stop looking to those barristers/lawyers that are nothing corporate officers in the city/state that is Washington D.C, the corporate headquarters of USA.INC......because we don't have a Republic form of government for the people and by the people that governs from the bottom up...we have a corporate entity that passes acts, statutes and codes all designed to raise revenue for this corporate structure. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law and the Universal Commercial Code because corporations are not actual governments and that is a fact. I have been busting my ass here trying to give you all the benefit of the massive amount of research and reading that I have done but it's like I have hit this ceiling......everyone just wants to flame each other. It is getting harder and harder to come here and post. I have so much better luck in other forums but the audience is larger here which is the reason I devote so much time in this forum...hell, maybe I shouldn't.

You're fucking deranged. The labor force participation rate measures demographics, not the health of the job market. It's lower now than it was in 2001, for the most part, because people are choosing not to work.

It grew in the sixties and seventies when many more blacks chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It went up again in the seventies and eighties as more women chose to enter the labor force. That was due to demographics. It began dropping in 2000 as more people began choosing to not work. That was due to demographics. That drop increased in rate in 2008 as Baby Boomers began hitting retirement age. That was due to demographics. There are many factors which drive the labor force participation rate, but mostly, it's people choosing on whether to work or not.

If it were an indicator of the job market, it would have dropped during Reagan's recession. It didn't. In fact it increased from 63.7% to 64.2% even as 2.7 million jobs were lost.

July, 1981 through November, 1982, we are mired in a deep recession. In terms of the job market, 2.7 million jobs were lost; the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 7.5% to 10.8% .... but imbeciles like you think the job markets were just peachy because the labor force participate rate went up.

Obviously you were not able to comprehend or understand a single word I posted...too many multi-syllable words for you to digest? It would'nt matter if 100 percent of the people were employed if they do not have enough to eek out a living. Blue collar jobs were shipped overseas, environmental laws of the most draconian type were put in place which was just fine for USA.INC because when they passed them into one of their acts, statutes or codes? They just shipped the jobs overseas by passing unfair "fair trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT while beating down corporations that they didn't own with more rules and regulations until they sold out and their companies became a subsidiary of this massive conglomerate....shit...there I go again...talking in words that you don't understand or concepts and truth that you can't even wrap your tiny mind around......carry on...sheeesh.

That you think toying with strawman arguments works for you speaks volumes. As before, you are arguing something other than what I am arguing. I have said nothing about the quality of jobs.I am talking about the health of the job market, which is at full employment; and the idiocies spouted how the labor force participation is the new unemployment indicator in place of the unemployment rate.

You have your own personal agenda, which at this time, interests me not. You're obviously welcome to spew your logorrhea to your heart's content. I shall do nothing more than remind you it has little, if anything, to do with what I'm talking about.

The same people who argued in 2007 that the economy was good while we were clearly falling into a great recession, are now telling you Obama's economy sucks. Never forget you are talking to fools and brainwashed liars. Certainly not being intellectually honest. Arrogant + ignorance = middle class republicans

 

[edthecynic]

Why are your ignoring the FACT that the Labor Participation Rate is at it's lowest rate since the mid-'70's? That means that millions of people have just given up on finding a job and are resigned to living off the government teat.

That means you are a stupid DittoTard mindlessly parroting a Limbaugh Lie.

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

I provided the FACTS and the link. What was difficult for you to understand? I'll be happy to explain it to you.

You provided no facts and no link. All you did was parrot your MessiahRushie's lies.

Let me get this straight. You need a LINK to prove to you that millions of young people are turning 16 and entering the labor market. WOW! You are amusing!

So you admit you lied when you said you provided a link.
Just because someone turns 16 does not mean they enter the labor market, most 16 year olds choose to stay in school and not enter the labor market and thus enter the "not in labor force" reducing the LPR.