US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Dale Smith]

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.

It isn't true. All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President. This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China! That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it. This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. What did he give us with all that power? ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!

Look at what Bush and the GOP left us and look at where we are now and you call that failure? You must be delusional. What else could it be?

Why won't the GOP invite Bush to their convention?

What's amusing, R-Derp...is that you honestly believe that Obama's stewardship of the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression is a plus for Barry! Where we are now is a testament to the strength of the American economy not to Barack Obama's fiscal policies. Our economy has managed to come back DESPITE having a President who is utterly clueless about job creation, economics in general and hasn't had a plan to create jobs or grow the economy since Larry Summers left six years ago!

This economy blows.....QE has debased the currency causing inflation and it has caused another giant bubble that is about to burst...everyone on the inside knows it and they have been preparing accordingly. The derivatives market is what will end up blowing things all to hell. Tick, tick, tick......just a matter of time before it implodes.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're one of the more amusing posers on this board, Rshermr! Holding forth on economics even though we both know...you don't know the first thing about the subject!

You accuse me of being a "con tool" yet you refer to the economic collapse back in 2008 as the "great republican recession" when any unbiased examination of what led to that collapse shows abundant blame for BOTH parties!

How exactly was it that the GOP managed to "water down" the initial stimulus when they didn't have the votes to stop ObamaCare? Once again...an unbiased examination of the stimulus...would show that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote that legislation with almost no input from Republicans at all. Those were the heady early days of the Obama Administration when progressives were doing whatever they felt like while the other side of the aisle could do NOTHING! For you to now blame the GOP for "watering down" a stimulus that failed to create jobs so badly that the Obama folks had to invent "Jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was, shows what an Obama shill you really are!

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

 

[Dale Smith]

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

I have the moron so flustered and confused that he can't even muster a reply to me. ...talk about kicking someone's ass?

 

[Rshermr]

And your "explanation" of why Kennedy called for tax cuts then simply underscored why tax cuts are being called for by Bill Clinton now and why it isn't a far right position only pushed by conservatives!

lowering taxes is the conservative economic plan. Period. As I clealy stated, Kennedy was not trying to fix a bad economy. Kennedy did not have a bad economy. He had a good economy, me boy. Which means that tax decreases made sense.
Now, since you want to simply post conservative talking points, and since you are incapable of trying to understand what I say to you, and since you are completely incapable of economic argument, and because you are a lying con tool, I am putting you on ignore.
Ignorance is your thing. I can not help you.

The unemployment rate when President Kennedy took office was 6.7%, highest in many years. The GDP was 3.5% which was down from 8.4% in 1959. So NO, the economy was NOT great when President John F. Kennedy took office.

Lets look at actual numbers, shall we?
The unemployment rate was 6.6% when he took office. Which is not a bad rate. It was under 5.5% when he died almost three years later. That is, of course, a pretty good economy overall. Really, me boy, if you want to quote me, try being honest. I did not say that Kennedy;s economy was great. I said, you see, that it was good. And trying to say that GDP had been dropping was a clumsy lie.
Now, if you are looking for a BAD economy, look at Reagan's, His was about 7.3% (Not awful, but not good) when he took office, and about 10.8% 2 years later. Now, that is bad. Second worst ue rate in US history..
Uh, gdp was 3.5% of what, me boy? GDP was (and is) measured in trillions of dollars. Not percentage points. GDP was 3.3 Trillion at the start of his term, January of 1961. It was $3.06 trillion in 1959. Jesus, you have a problem understanding, me boy. GDP is not a measure of economic condition on it's own. It is a one of several indicators over time, looking at change not size.
US Real GDP by Year

So, the output of the economy was increasing throughout kennedy's term. And the unemployment rate was, as I said, good. I did not say great, and it was not great. But it did not require stimulus.

 

[Rshermr]

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

I have the moron so flustered and confused that he can't even muster a reply to me. ...talk about kicking someone's ass?

Sorry you are so delusional. Is it congenital, dipshit. I am sure you will get along well with oldstyle. both of you are liars. Have fun.

 

[Rshermr]

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

I have the moron so flustered and confused that he can't even muster a reply to me. ...talk about kicking someone's ass?

So, you are the idiot who was quoting gdp as percentages. Wow. And after doing that, you have the nerve to call anyone a moron. I just responded to your post, which was stupid. Nice try, though. Explained gently why you were wrong. Stupid, actually. Percentages!!!!! Really, dipshit????

 

[Rshermr]

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 hav 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 whold 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?????

Let's be upfront, I am no fan of the Bush crime family that is thicker than thieves with the Clintons, but the fact that you have NO fucking clue as to what caused the housing bubble burst along with all the other "crashes" tells me right away that you are an intellectual lightweight and that you don't know a fucking thing about the fractional banking system, Promissory notes and the "boom and bust" cycles that they create in order to gain access to hard assets because bankruptcies and foreclosure are built right into this debt slavery system.

Spare us all your attitude of superiority...you are as naked a jaybird....you have got nothing.

Anything specific, or do you just like to hurl insults. You have obvious mental problems, but those are yours. What I posted is true, and provable. What you post seems to be from a position of fear. Really, dipshit, all of your bravado is totally lost on me. If you want to argue what I am discussing, be my guest. But trylinks and truth. Unlike what you want, I am not in the slightest impressed with you. So far you have no argument, just opinion. Prove it with some backing, if you can. I suspect, however, that you are spending time putting together conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories require proof. If you have it, I will read it. If not, then you are just another clown telling all who will listen how smart you are. Which is totally unimpressive.
I have spent my life with people that have class, and learned over that time that people who brag about their knowledge are ALWAYS clowns. If you are an exception, prove it, me boy, with links and truth.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

I would never avoid you, at least not yet. I fear you may be a complete liar, which, in the end, is probably why most do avoid you. Relative to your expressed opinion of me, I am so hurt. You know how much I value your opinion.
And really, me boy, I have learned over the years that stupid people do not have a sense of humor.

 

[Markle]

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

 

[Markle]

It's amazing how you repeat the same lies you are caught telling earlier. I myself showed you the term, save or create jobs, was written in Obama's stimulus plan before it was ever voted on. Yet here you are, repeating your idiocy as though Obama created that term because you think it didn't create any jobs. The only explanation is that Rshermr is right... you're a con tool.

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics. I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.

 

[Rshermr]

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.
I did not say it was normal. Try not to change my words. I simply stated it is not a big change. You seem stuck on the participation rate. Maybe you can find an impartial source that believes participation rates mean something important. My bet is you can not. Because, you see, participation rates, to any rational person, mean absolutely nothing about the health of the economy on their own. Never have, never will. What i recognize is that you are posting conservative talking points, being unhappy because the unemployment rate has gotten good. News such as good employment rates always makes cons crazy.
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?
Thanks for calling me son, me boy. At my age, anyone that calls me that gains a couple points.
Now, I know you think it is profound that you know about new entrants to the labor force. But, me boy, it is not news to me, or to anyone I actually know. Must be the company you keep. The fact that there are new members, mostly young, joining the labor pool has been considered forever. It is the most basic thing about the labor pool, me boy. Nothing new there. But, what is new is the baby boomers retiring. Read about it, try to educate yourself.
Now I know that conservatives have been trying to overcome the good news about the ue rate with news of the participation rate, and made every effort to blame the problem on the current administration. And I know that conservatives believe what they are told without question. But for those with a rational bent, here is a article:

Declining Labor Participation Rates

• By Robert Farley
• Posted on March 11, 2015

337


Republicans have tried to temper the latest jobs report — which showed a gain of nearly 300,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dipping to 5.5 percent — by noting that the labor force participation rate has continued to decline. But in at least two instances, the claims have gone too far.

• Sen. Lindsey Graham said the labor participation rate “is at an all-time low.” That’s not accurate. It was lower between 1948 and 1978.
• Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus blamed the shrinking participation rate on “the Obama economy,” but economists say most of the decline, which has been happening for more than a decade, is due to demographics, including the trend of baby boomers reaching retirement age and deciding to no longer work.

In a town hall speech in South Carolina on the day the jobs report was released, President Obama pointed to the job growth and declining unemployment rate as evidence that “we’re in much better shape now than we were six years ago.”

The same day, RNC Chairman Priebus issued a statement warning that the “unemployment rate masks the low labor force participation rate” and said that “in the Obama economy” the “percentage of Americans in the labor force has shrunk to levels not seen since the 1970s.”

Priebus, March 6: We also can’t forget that the unemployment rate masks the low labor force participation rate. Too many Americans have given up and stopped looking for work altogether. In fact, in the Obama economy the percentage of Americans in the labor force has shrunk to levels not seen since the 1970s.

That message was echoed by Sen. Graham two days later on NBC’s Meet the Press, when he said, “I think that the labor participation rate is at an all-time low.”

The labor force participation rate, as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is “the percentage of the population [16 years and older] that is either employed or unemployed (that is, either working or actively seeking work).” Graham, who is considering running for president, is wrong about the rate being at an all-time low. However, as Priebus said, it is at its lowest point since the 1970s — 1978 to be exact.

The low point — according to historical data going back to 1948 — came in December 1954, when the rate was 58.1 percent.

As for Priebus tying the participation rate to the “Obama economy,” there’s more to that story as well. The labor force participation rate has been declining for more than a decade, and economists predict it will continue to decline for the next decade and more.

Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.

Among the reasons cited for the trend:

1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.

2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”

3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”

So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.

But it’s also true that the decline has been even steeper than projected. For example, in that 2006 report, BLS projected the participation rate would decline to 64.5 percent in 2020. It’s already 1.7 percentage points below that in 2015.

CBO estimated that between the end of 2007 (a year before Obama took office) and the end of 2013, about half of the decline in participation rates could be pegged to long-term demographic trends, about a third to “temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages,” and about a sixth to “unusual aspects of the slow recovery.”

CBO, November 2014: Of the 3 percentage-point decline in participation between the end of 2007 and the end of 2013, CBO estimates, about 1½ percentage points was the result of long-term trends, about 1 percentage point arose from temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages, and about one-half of a percentage point was attributable to unusual aspects of the slow recovery.

Similar conclusions were reached by the Federal Reserve Board, which wrote in September 2014 that “much – but not all – of the decline in the labor force participation rate since 2007 is structural in nature.”

A report from Shigeru Fujita at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia on Feb. 6, 2014, also sought to tease out the relative impact of various causes for the declining labor force participation rate. Fujita concluded that about 65 percent of the decline between 2000 and the final quarter of 2013 was due to retirement and an increase in disability.

Fujita, Feb. 6, 2014: The increase in nonparticipation due to retirement has occurred only after around 2010, while nonparticipation due to disability has been steadily increasing over the past 13 years. Similarly, nonparticipation due to schooling has been steadily increasing and has been another major contributor to the secular decline in the participation rate since 2000.

The number of those who did not look for a job (thus being out of the labor force) even though they wanted a job increased significantly between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the end of 2011. This group of “discouraged workers” explains roughly 30 percent of the total decline (around 2 percentage points) in the participation rate over the same period. Between the first quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013, the participation rate of this group has been roughly flat.

However, Fujita concluded, “Almost all of the decline (80 percent) in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is accounted for by the increase in nonparticipation due to retirement. This implies that the decline in the unemployment rate since 2012 is not due to more discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force.”

Many economists believe that the steeply declining labor force participation rate is a reason for concern, as Priebus said, even as the declining unemployment rate seems to paint a rosier picture.

In a speech on Aug. 22, 2014, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen concluded that “the labor market has improved significantly over the past year,” but said that metrics, including 19 labor market indicators, suggest “that the decline in the unemployment rate over this period somewhat overstates the improvement in overall labor market conditions.”

Still, Priebus’ comment, tying the entirety of the drop in the labor force participation rate to “the Obama economy,” ignores some of the demographic and structural forces that have been driving the participation rate down for more than a decade, and that are expected to continue to drive the rate down for decades to come.
Declining Labor Participation Rates

Bu the way, the labor participation rate has increased a bit since this article.

 

[sealybobo]

You have it backwards, but exactly in line with the bat shit crazy con web sites, dipshit.
If you are correct, show me a time when, during a bad economy, lowering tax rates has helped. An actual time, me boy. But then, you can not. There is no time in history when the income was bad that lowering tax rates has helped.
How, I know you say I am wrong. But if I were wrong, you could pick a bad economy when lowering taxes helped. And, me poor ignorant con tool, you can not.
Kennedy, me boy, was president during three years of the 1960's when the economy was relatively GOOD. What you ignore, purposefully, of course, is that:
1. The unemployment rate was about 5.5%, which is good.
2. Upper tax rates were at 90%, which was nuts.
So, no, it was not a bad economy.
It was, in fact, pretty good. His tax decreases could not have failed to make the economy somewhat better than it was at the time. But you are trying to spread untruth. What I have been saying is that tax changes during bad economic times have little effect. But stimulative spending is the answer.
Now, I know you will spend your time ignoring this, and stating the con dogma. Because that is your job. Which, me boy, makes you useless.
So, let me help you. Your hero lowered taxes in a high unemployment time, and made things REALLY, REALLY bad. Then, when he was faced with a really really bad economy, he raised taxes and spent like crazy. And it worked.

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.

It isn't true. All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President. This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China! That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it. This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. What did he give us with all that power? ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!

Look at what Bush and the GOP left us and look at where we are now and you call that failure? You must be delusional. What else could it be?

Why won't the GOP invite Bush to their convention?

What's amusing, R-Derp...is that you honestly believe that Obama's stewardship of the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression is a plus for Barry! Where we are now is a testament to the strength of the American economy not to Barack Obama's fiscal policies. Our economy has managed to come back DESPITE having a President who is utterly clueless about job creation, economics in general and hasn't had a plan to create jobs or grow the economy since Larry Summers left six years ago!

We are out of the great Bush recession dummy

 

[Oldstyle]

So if stimulative spending is "the answer", Rshermr...then kindly explain why Barack Obama racking up more debt than any President in history hasn't produced a booming economy? According to you...the economy should be on a tear right now! Yet for some reason it's grinding along.

According to you...both Kennedy and Clinton don't have the faintest idea about fiscal policy because both advocated for tax cuts to stimulate the economy? They didn't call for more government spending. Why is that?

Under Bush, millions of jobs moved to China with over 42,000 factories closed with the country losing all that revenue and paying out billions in unemployment. Then there were the deficit creating Bush tax cuts costing trillions in revenue. Then the two wars on credit cards. Then over 40,000 maimed in Iraq costing trillions into the future.
And that was just a little of what Bush and the GOP left Obama.
Republicans may constantly call Obama a messiah, but he doesn't have god powers. He's just a man doing the best he can but with an entire political party trying to make the country fail so they can say he failed.

Yea, go ahead, say that isn't true with a straight face.

It isn't true. All that nonsense are the excuses that Barack Obama's supporters have come up with to explain his failures as President. This is the man who appointed Jeffrey Immelt...the CEO of General Electric...to be his "Jobs Czar" when it was General Electric that was one of the biggest exporters of jobs to China! That's how clueless Barry is...and how brainwashed you are for not seeing it. This is the man who's Presidency began with huge Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. What did he give us with all that power? ObamaCare...the Obama Stimulus...AND A WHOLE LOT OF EXCUSES!

Look at what Bush and the GOP left us and look at where we are now and you call that failure? You must be delusional. What else could it be?

Why won't the GOP invite Bush to their convention?

What's amusing, R-Derp...is that you honestly believe that Obama's stewardship of the worst recovery from a recession since The Great Depression is a plus for Barry! Where we are now is a testament to the strength of the American economy not to Barack Obama's fiscal policies. Our economy has managed to come back DESPITE having a President who is utterly clueless about job creation, economics in general and hasn't had a plan to create jobs or grow the economy since Larry Summers left six years ago!

We are out of the great Bush recession dummy

This became the "Obama Jobless Recovery" years ago, Sealy! We've been grinding along with less then 2% economic growth for years with the Fed unable to raise interest rates because the economy isn't strong enough. Barry OWNS that...not Bush.

 

[Oldstyle]

Show me another Administration that used "jobs created or saved" as a measure of their economic policies! Until Obama...the measure was simply "jobs created". Why? Because that number was something you could accurately count. It wasn't a number that you INVENTED! The numbers that they came up with using "jobs created or saved" were whatever they wanted them to be because there was absolutely no method to verify them. They absolutely used that number BECAUSE they knew they hadn't created jobs despite spending an ungodly amount of money! I'm a "con tool"? You've fallen for a con job!

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics. I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.

I don't think anyone has ever been "intimidated" by Rshermr's "knowledge"! He's just one more internet poser...pretending to be something that he's not and when he's called on it? Prepare yourself for a slew of personal attacks. It's his stock response.

 

[Dale Smith]

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 hav 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 whold 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?????

Let's be upfront, I am no fan of the Bush crime family that is thicker than thieves with the Clintons, but the fact that you have NO fucking clue as to what caused the housing bubble burst along with all the other "crashes" tells me right away that you are an intellectual lightweight and that you don't know a fucking thing about the fractional banking system, Promissory notes and the "boom and bust" cycles that they create in order to gain access to hard assets because bankruptcies and foreclosure are built right into this debt slavery system.

Spare us all your attitude of superiority...you are as naked a jaybird....you have got nothing.

Anything specific, or do you just like to hurl insults. You have obvious mental problems, but those are yours. What I posted is true, and provable. What you post seems to be from a position of fear. Really, dipshit, all of your bravado is totally lost on me. If you want to argue what I am discussing, be my guest. But trylinks and truth. Unlike what you want, I am not in the slightest impressed with you. So far you have no argument, just opinion. Prove it with some backing, if you can. I suspect, however, that you are spending time putting together conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories require proof. If you have it, I will read it. If not, then you are just another clown telling all who will listen how smart you are. Which is totally unimpressive.
I have spent my life with people that have class, and learned over that time that people who brag about their knowledge are ALWAYS clowns. If you are an exception, prove it, me boy, with links and truth.

Pot meet kettle. You are one to whine about insults. I guaran-fucking-tee you that there is more proof that the banking oligarchs were behind this asset grab then you have any proof that "da gubermint" is at fault. Playing the blame game when the economy tanks when it's actually the owners of USA.INC (The Fed bankers) just shows how ignorant you are about what we are facing.

 

[Dale Smith]

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics. I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.

I don't think anyone has ever been "intimidated" by Rshermr's "knowledge"! He's just one more internet poser...pretending to be something that he's not and when he's called on it? Prepare yourself for a slew of personal attacks. It's his stock response.

He is definitely clueless....just another water carrier for the Barrypuppet.

 

[Rshermr]

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics. I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.

I don't think anyone has ever been "intimidated" by Rshermr's "knowledge"! He's just one more internet poser...pretending to be something that he's not and when he's called on it? Prepare yourself for a slew of personal attacks. It's his stock response.

 

[Rshermr]

Again...

That term was already used before ever being implemented. You've been shown this. So other than being a "con tool," what reason is there for you to continue lying and claim they made that term up because you think they didn't create any jobs? The term came before any jobs were created or saved. Are you even capable of understanding how that in itself exposes your lie?

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics. I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.

I don't think anyone has ever been "intimidated" by Rshermr's "knowledge"! He's just one more internet poser...pretending to be something that he's not and when he's called on it? Prepare yourself for a slew of personal attacks. It's his stock response.

Uh, personal attacks. You mean posts free of discussion about the issues? You mean like this one? And every other post you make?? Like the list of posts by you and your friends above?
I will defend myself from your baseless attacks, but much prefer discussions about economics. You know, what you say I know nothing about but are unwilling to engage in due to your desire for...your personal attacks on me. Really, me boy, try discussing the subject and backing yourself up with proof.

 

[Rshermr]

Thing is, if you have no integrity, you do not care if you are shown to be a liar, and to not have seen what he was provided with. And, of course, oldstyle has no integrity of any kind. None. He is simply a lying paid con tool, or troll for short. Poor little minded clown.

I've read some of "oldstyle" posts. Of those, every one was 100% accurate. Of yours I have read, you whine and call childish names but little, if anything of value. Seen that on other threads too.

Welcome to the board, Markle. I think you'll find that Rshermr is one of our more "entertaining" posters! He once told me that not only was he an economics major in college but that he was so well versed in the subject that his college had him helping to teach the subject as an undergrad! Amazingly however he thought I was referring to a brick and mortar college when I referenced The Chicago School of Economics. His kind of stupid is a rare thing! Enjoy abusing him...I know I do!

He is amusing and it was obvious he/she knows less than nothing about economics. I guess the ploy was to intimidate others by falsely claiming to be knowledgeable about the topic.

I don't think anyone has ever been "intimidated" by Rshermr's "knowledge"! He's just one more internet poser...pretending to be something that he's not and when he's called on it? Prepare yourself for a slew of personal attacks. It's his stock response.

He is definitely clueless....just another water carrier for the Barrypuppet.

And another......personal attack. Incapable of discussion??

 

[Rshermr]

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 hav 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 whold 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?????

Let's be upfront, I am no fan of the Bush crime family that is thicker than thieves with the Clintons, but the fact that you have NO fucking clue as to what caused the housing bubble burst along with all the other "crashes" tells me right away that you are an intellectual lightweight and that you don't know a fucking thing about the fractional banking system, Promissory notes and the "boom and bust" cycles that they create in order to gain access to hard assets because bankruptcies and foreclosure are built right into this debt slavery system.

Spare us all your attitude of superiority...you are as naked a jaybird....you have got nothing.

Anything specific, or do you just like to hurl insults. You have obvious mental problems, but those are yours. What I posted is true, and provable. What you post seems to be from a position of fear. Really, dipshit, all of your bravado is totally lost on me. If you want to argue what I am discussing, be my guest. But trylinks and truth. Unlike what you want, I am not in the slightest impressed with you. So far you have no argument, just opinion. Prove it with some backing, if you can. I suspect, however, that you are spending time putting together conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories require proof. If you have it, I will read it. If not, then you are just another clown telling all who will listen how smart you are. Which is totally unimpressive.
I have spent my life with people that have class, and learned over that time that people who brag about their knowledge are ALWAYS clowns. If you are an exception, prove it, me boy, with links and truth.

Pot meet kettle. You are one to whine about insults. I guaran-fucking-tee you that there is more proof that the banking oligarchs were behind this asset grab then you have any proof that "da gubermint" is at fault. Playing the blame game when the economy tanks when it's actually the owners of USA.INC (The Fed bankers) just shows how ignorant you are about what we are facing.

Ok, me boy. Try stopping with the personal attacks. I do not disagree with much of what you say, if you could simply try to back up your broad statements with some evidence it would possibly set a platform for discussion. If you think I am incapable of discussion with you, then go find someone more in line with your thought process. And leave the insults out of your dialogue. Unless you simply want to end this thread by making it too crowded with meaningless posts to bother with.