US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.

I listen to economists on youtube all the time like Jim Willie that have been claiming the real Unemployment is over 20 percent if not higher for the last three years. I know that becasuse you are a shill for the Barrypuppet that you want to pretend like everything is great and wonderful but the fact remains is that things suck for 101 million people that are on some type of "gubermint" subsidy while Barrypuppet allows in illegals and flies in muslim refugees that WE have to pay for. Your rose colored glasses keep you from seeing the real truth....enjoy.

Well maybe you can answer the question then that Markle could not ....

What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?

I have no idea but the WH deducts those that no longer receive unemployment payments because it ran out as not counting on the roll. The numbers are totally "fudged" and do not represent the unemployment problem of DECENT paying jobs in this country.

This is still my favorite post of the night.

G'head, dale.... tell me again how accurate and legit shadowstats.com is even though you have no fucking clue how he derives at his figures....

To give you an idea of how stupid you are for posting such idiocy... that would be like me insisting the Chrysler building in NYC is the world's tallest building; and when asked how tall is it -- confessing I have no fucking clue how tall it is; but I still know it's the tallest!!

Tell me how the Barrypuppet and friends calculate that the unemployment rate is only 4.9 percent while we have 101 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy while 38 percent of the populace that even have a job make less thjan 20K a year....so tell me again how great things are under the Barrypuppet........sell me on leftardism!!!! (snicker)

Asked and answered.

Why are you repeating questions I already answered?

Is it because you can't answer mine?

What did the BLS change in 2009 for shadowstats.com to stop mirroring BLS stats in 2009...?

It's put up or shut up time, dale..... which is it?

 

[Faun]

You perfectly struck the nail with the hammer.... there is no way to prove anything to any of these rightard dots here. They reject all evidence they find inconvenient and cling to nonsense like shadowstats.com, which they can't even explain how their numbers are derived. They live in some bizarre alternate universe where up is down, black is white, and the only "truth"s are those they get from the echo chamber.

Yeah, Faun....."da gubermint" never fudges numbers. The current employment figures are an unmitigated JOKE. But I will give you the same opportunity that I hgave your pal....please make your case as to why I should become a lefard shill lioke you and embrace the ways of communism...because at the end of the day, that is EXACTLY what you come across as. What benefits are there to be had to be a leftard like you....totally open-minded here......make your case about the benefits of a statist controlled society.

You're too crazy and stupid to be on the left. And your mind is so open, all the gray matter leaked out.

If I was crazy and stupid, I would BE a leftard that believes in a benevolent communist "gubermint" would look out for me. You obviously believe that communism or socialism is the way to go and that make YOU "batshit crazy".

Ahh, the ever-popular pre-K rightard retort of, I know you are but what am I?

Yeppers, that sure does reveal your superior intelligence.

I know more than you...infinitely more. You are a mere child when compared to the things I know.....deal with it.

That must explain why pre-K parroting are the best you can muster.

 

[Faun]

Yet more insanity from you. Is that all you have? Mind explaining what a video from decades ago has to do with "barrypuppet?"

You have no clue about MK-Ultra, MK -Naomi, or how the Tavistock and Brookings Institute and the Frankfurt School used propaganda, subliminal messaging and neuro-linguistic programming using not only visual images but mneomics as well. My knowldge of this topic is so over your head that it would be akin to trying to explain Boolean algebra to a chimp....it's simply a waste of time. You are one of the brain dead sheeple....bottom line.

Again, to highlight your insanity.... those were clandestine government programs that your deranged brain thinks the government revealed to the public in a network sign-off video. Meanwhile, I found, and showed you the same video which did not contain the subliminal messages that were added to create an Internet hoax.

Ummm, it was played at regular speed, dumb ass. You found that web site by going to a conspiracy website where someone thought they coul

Like I said.... you're batshit insane. Completely bonkers.

Ummm, it was played at regular speed, dumb ass. You found that web site by going to a conspiracy website where someone thought they could debunk it by playing iit t regular speed whioch made no sense. You would have never found that piece done at regular speed had you not done a "Google" search and then click on the fist site that you thought could debunk itr which WAS a conspiracy website. You can lie as much as you want but I know differently. Like I stated before, I know more about this topic than your little brtain could even fathoim or comprehend.

Lying doesn't help you since the subliminal message in the hoax video were also detectable at regular speed. And I showed you how I found that video with bing, no conspiracy website needed.

Nope, it did not and you showed nothing about how you found anything. You simply "Googled" National Anthem Debunk" and found some post on a conspiracy website. I did the same thing and found the link that you posted because it wsas the first one. Why lie about it? What is so funny is that it proved NOTHING at all.....

Aside from your idiocy of thinking you know better than I how I found it... a clue for you being that I didn't find it with Google, though you think I did....

The subliminal messages are detectable (not to be confused with legible) at regular speed. Just because you're not of sound mind and can't see them doesn't mean others cannot.

 

[Rshermr]

It's true my ability to detect a hoax is not your problem; but your mental instability certainly is.

LMAO! Hey, it's not me that doesn't find it odd that out of all the cameras disposed of around the Pentagon on 9/11 that they have only released a few frames of footage. You don't believe that your beloved "gubermint" uses subliminal messages in order to steer the huddled masses and you don't believe that they would ever stoop to false flag attacks and events.....keep believing in Santa Claus.....ain't no sweat off of my balls.

And here folks, is dale's typical response when his idiocy is exposed under a spotlight... he deviates to another topic.

Along with the same tired strawman that since I proved his propaganda video containing subliminal messages was an Internet hoax, that I therefore believe the government is not capable of such deviousness; which of course is neither true nor ever stated. It's just more goo oozing from his deranged mind.

Actually, you proved nothing but we covered that but what you cannot admiot is that you are a shill for the Barrypuppet and anything that paints this fraud in a good light, you push with childlike faith and then swing your little cyber purse when others don't by the bullshit.......see how that works???

Actually, Faun is a seeker of truth. As am I. And having wondered about you, we both gave you a chance and you proved yourself to be a liar, or just plain delusional. In the end, you proved yourself to be both. Are you going for the trifecta, me boy"

Neither you or Faun would know "the truth" even if it came up and bit you on the ass. I asked you to make a case as to why people should be leftards and you bailed...wassamatter? No strength in your convictions? "School" me in the ways of leftardism and the benefits thereof...don't be shy nor ashamed of what you propose. You should be jumping at the opportunity to spread the word and message of the leftard....don't hold back!!!!!

There is no such thing, me poor ignorant tool, as a leftard. Or leftardism. Those are simply irrational names by a conservative troll. So, since you are unable to ask a rational question, why do you think anyone would be able to explain anything to you. You are proven irrational. Nut case. Beyond hope. Delusional. We who are rational just like the truth. Which is not something you are familiar with.
Let me educate you, me boy. though I know you think you are very smart, I know from years studying economics in college and in serious reading, that you know nothing. But first, you have to understand something you do not. It is called belief systems. It is how people believe in anything. And as a con, you have a well understood belief system. It has been studied for years. Because, you see, there is a lot of money in being able to convince people of whatever you would like. And study after study has proven that cons are stupid. I can give you a few of them, but I am sure you do not like studies. As a con, you have several unique belief systems. They include:
1. Believing what they WANT to believe.
2. Belonging to a group with like beliefs (Group Think).
3. Anger is really important to you, makes you happy inside.
4. Believing you are smart, which is, interestingly, part of being stupid, is important to you.

So, you are pissed off, believe what your associates believe, want to believe what you do believe, need on proof of anything at all, and you are completely uninterested and unaffected by things like truth, evidence, impartiality, journalism, expert opinions, or credentials of the sources you peruse. You could care less about anything except what you want to believe and the belief of your group.
So, rational thought works for you, and it is really convenient to be able to believe what you want. Because you do not need to learn anything the hard way, by studying the subject. Because you can believe what you want.
So others can not pull off your little game. They believe what they can prove to be true. And look for evidence on both sides. And check out their sources of information for expertise and impartiality. Both of which you could care less about. We are, me boy, completely different entities. You are happy with who you are, and I would rather be shot than be what you want to be.

 

[Rshermr]

Yet more insanity from you. Is that all you have? Mind explaining what a video from decades ago has to do with "barrypuppet?"

You have no clue about MK-Ultra, MK -Naomi, or how the Tavistock and Brookings Institute and the Frankfurt School used propaganda, subliminal messaging and neuro-linguistic programming using not only visual images but mneomics as well. My knowldge of this topic is so over your head that it would be akin to trying to explain Boolean algebra to a chimp....it's simply a waste of time. You are one of the brain dead sheeple....bottom line.

Again, to highlight your insanity.... those were clandestine government programs that your deranged brain thinks the government revealed to the public in a network sign-off video. Meanwhile, I found, and showed you the same video which did not contain the subliminal messages that were added to create an Internet hoax.

Ummm, it was played at regular speed, dumb ass. You found that web site by going to a conspiracy website where someone thought they coul

Like I said.... you're batshit insane. Completely bonkers.

Ummm, it was played at regular speed, dumb ass. You found that web site by going to a conspiracy website where someone thought they could debunk it by playing iit t regular speed whioch made no sense. You would have never found that piece done at regular speed had you not done a "Google" search and then click on the fist site that you thought could debunk itr which WAS a conspiracy website. You can lie as much as you want but I know differently. Like I stated before, I know more about this topic than your little brtain could even fathoim or comprehend.

What I thought was cute was when the clown suggested there were televisions in Nazi Germany. In the 1930's. He must have been kidding, eh? The first German tv was state controlled and went no where, after being introduced in 1935. It was on air only three times per week, and had no capability to do anything at all lie what our delusional boy thinks. It was trashed in favor of radio, and then the war pretty much ended any intent to develop tv for years. What is most problematical was that there were very, very few tv's to receive the broadcast. Funny.
Nice job of proving the extremely smart self promoting tool to be what he is, which is simply stupid.

Here is another example of just how badly I kicked your ass yet again.....ya kinda walked into this one.

(snicker)

You really are delusional. A tv transmission in the mid to late 30's was completely basic, and had very few receiving sets to broadcast to, dipshit. Which is what I said. Did you have other information, me boy, or are you just delusional again?

 

[gipper]

shadowstats.com

You will believe the government, but not Shadowstats. This clearly indicates you need help. You WANT to believe propaganda and denigrate the truth. Sadly, there are too many Americans like you.

I guess the Participation Rate means nothing to you. Statist dupes...they are everywhere.

The LFPR started ascending in the early 60's as baby boomers began reaching working age; and began descending when they started hitting retirement age.

... to wingnuts, this is rocket science.

The mammoth effort of Progressives to live in a world of untruths is awesome to behold.

Here...AGAIN we have Progressives pointing to baby boomers who are retiring...though more are working later in life.

What they want you to ignore is that tens of thousands of SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS ENTER THE JOB MARKET EVERY DAY.

Cute try but...FAILURE AGAIN FOR MY GOOD FRIENDS THE PROGRESSIVES.

Poor try. Failure again for you, dipshit. And I am not a friend of yours, either good or bad. Because I dislike liars. What you ignore, of course, is that Millions of older workers retire every single month. Older retirements are increasing much faster than new entrants are entering the work force. Which you would know if you read the information available to you. But then, as a con troll, you do not like facts.

Don't be a Markle. Millions of seniors are not retiring every month.

Last year, there were slightly more than a million for the entire year.

2014: 39,008,771
2015: 40,089,061

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Total increase of folks retiring and collecting SS was 1,080,290 for the year ... or about 90,024 per month.

How many wouldn't retire, if they had access to good paying jobs?

We will never know for sure, but certainly a good many would stay in the work force rather than take social security and retire.

Only a dunce would think nearly 100 million Americans of working age not working, is acceptable and does not affect unemployment.

 

[Faun]

You will believe the government, but not Shadowstats. This clearly indicates you need help. You WANT to believe propaganda and denigrate the truth. Sadly, there are too many Americans like you.

I guess the Participation Rate means nothing to you. Statist dupes...they are everywhere.

The LFPR started ascending in the early 60's as baby boomers began reaching working age; and began descending when they started hitting retirement age.

... to wingnuts, this is rocket science.

The mammoth effort of Progressives to live in a world of untruths is awesome to behold.

Here...AGAIN we have Progressives pointing to baby boomers who are retiring...though more are working later in life.

What they want you to ignore is that tens of thousands of SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS ENTER THE JOB MARKET EVERY DAY.

Cute try but...FAILURE AGAIN FOR MY GOOD FRIENDS THE PROGRESSIVES.

Poor try. Failure again for you, dipshit. And I am not a friend of yours, either good or bad. Because I dislike liars. What you ignore, of course, is that Millions of older workers retire every single month. Older retirements are increasing much faster than new entrants are entering the work force. Which you would know if you read the information available to you. But then, as a con troll, you do not like facts.

Don't be a Markle. Millions of seniors are not retiring every month.

Last year, there were slightly more than a million for the entire year.

2014: 39,008,771
2015: 40,089,061

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Total increase of folks retiring and collecting SS was 1,080,290 for the year ... or about 90,024 per month.

How many wouldn't retire, if they had access to good paying jobs?

We will never know for sure, but certainly a good many would stay in the work force rather than take social security and retire.

Only a dunce would think nearly 100 million Americans of working age not working, is acceptable and does not affect unemployment.

While it's cute how you think laying down points you confess, you "will never know for sure," is your idea of a cogent argument, the stark reality is that 95 million not in the labor force represents little more than a third of our 16 and over population. About the same percent as we had in 1978 and the economy was not too bad. In fact, it was an even higher than that (sometimes over 40%) from the 1940's through the 1970's and we had some good economies during those decades.

The stark reality is the labor force participation rate reflects demographics more than it does the health of the job market or the economy and the only reason rightards keep harping on it is because we have a Democrat in the White House.

 

[Rshermr]

You will believe the government, but not Shadowstats. This clearly indicates you need help. You WANT to believe propaganda and denigrate the truth. Sadly, there are too many Americans like you.

I guess the Participation Rate means nothing to you. Statist dupes...they are everywhere.

The LFPR started ascending in the early 60's as baby boomers began reaching working age; and began descending when they started hitting retirement age.

... to wingnuts, this is rocket science.

The mammoth effort of Progressives to live in a world of untruths is awesome to behold.

Here...AGAIN we have Progressives pointing to baby boomers who are retiring...though more are working later in life.

What they want you to ignore is that tens of thousands of SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS ENTER THE JOB MARKET EVERY DAY.

Cute try but...FAILURE AGAIN FOR MY GOOD FRIENDS THE PROGRESSIVES.

Poor try. Failure again for you, dipshit. And I am not a friend of yours, either good or bad. Because I dislike liars. What you ignore, of course, is that Millions of older workers retire every single month. Older retirements are increasing much faster than new entrants are entering the work force. Which you would know if you read the information available to you. But then, as a con troll, you do not like facts.

Don't be a Markle. Millions of seniors are not retiring every month.

Last year, there were slightly more than a million for the entire year.

2014: 39,008,771
2015: 40,089,061

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Total increase of folks retiring and collecting SS was 1,080,290 for the year ... or about 90,024 per month.

How many wouldn't retire, if they had access to good paying jobs?


We will never know for sure, but certainly a good many would stay in the work force rather than take social security and retire.

Only a dunce would think nearly 100 million Americans of working age not working, is acceptable and does not affect unemployment.

Actually, only a dunce would say something like what you just said. With no source to back you up. No link, but simply asking people to believe you. You, a person with a really obvious agenda.
Imagine what you could learn if you studied the subject, like actually spent a little time going to impartial sources that had people who had the ability and time to actually STUDY the subject instead of people like you who have no background but lots of agenda.
You see, me boy, the retirement percentage is thought to be largely because people CAN retire. There is health care at reasonable costs prior to medicare age. People largely do not have to wait for medicare, and have to work in order to remain covered.
I know you believe that people are retiring because they can not find a job, which is and has always been true. Perhaps you have not been over 60 looking for a job yet. It is not a pleasant place to be, me boy. Suddenly, for millions, they are in a position of having to settle for much less attractive jobs, making retirement seem like a better option.
But we all understand your agenda. Truth is of no value to you. Which is why you provide no link to independent and impartial information supporting you drivel. Making you irrelevant.

"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 following graph from BLS shows the civilian labor force participation rate between 1948 and 2015. As the graph shows, the participation rate in February 2015 (62.8 percent) is the lowest since March 1978. But the rate was lower than that every month between 1948 and 1978.
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.
Declining Labor Participation Rates

Or, another expert description of the participation rate:
"It was common for boomers to postpone retirement during and immediately following the downturn, but they have gradually begun leaving the domestic labor market. About half of 63-year-old boomers were no longer in the workforce in 2014, according to a recent Gallup study. By the age of 68, less than a third of boomers were still in the labor market.
It's also important to note that the percentage of older workers participating in the labor market started climbing in the mid-1990s, well before the Dot Com bubble crashed and the Great Recession walloped Americans' nest eggs. The narrative that older workers are still reluctant to retire solely because of the Great Recession just isn't as applicable as it was a few years ago.
"What that means is the low levels of participation we see today are not primarily due to the economic cycle. They're due to a much longer lasting demographic influence," Wolfers said. "It's actually something that's going to continue over the next decade"
Where Are All the Workers?

Con tools love to blame supposed problems on Obama and dems, and so do exactly that. But if you actually use your mind to reason what is going on, you find that cons ar simply being cons, and their conclusions are, as usual, stupid.

 

[Rshermr]

The LFPR started ascending in the early 60's as baby boomers began reaching working age; and began descending when they started hitting retirement age.

... to wingnuts, this is rocket science.

The mammoth effort of Progressives to live in a world of untruths is awesome to behold.

Here...AGAIN we have Progressives pointing to baby boomers who are retiring...though more are working later in life.

What they want you to ignore is that tens of thousands of SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS ENTER THE JOB MARKET EVERY DAY.

Cute try but...FAILURE AGAIN FOR MY GOOD FRIENDS THE PROGRESSIVES.

Poor try. Failure again for you, dipshit. And I am not a friend of yours, either good or bad. Because I dislike liars. What you ignore, of course, is that Millions of older workers retire every single month. Older retirements are increasing much faster than new entrants are entering the work force. Which you would know if you read the information available to you. But then, as a con troll, you do not like facts.

Don't be a Markle. Millions of seniors are not retiring every month.

Last year, there were slightly more than a million for the entire year.

2014: 39,008,771
2015: 40,089,061

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Total increase of folks retiring and collecting SS was 1,080,290 for the year ... or about 90,024 per month.

How many wouldn't retire, if they had access to good paying jobs?

We will never know for sure, but certainly a good many would stay in the work force rather than take social security and retire.

Only a dunce would think nearly 100 million Americans of working age not working, is acceptable and does not affect unemployment.

While it's cute how you think laying down points you confess, you "will never know for sure," is your idea of a cogent argument, the stark reality is that 95 million not in the labor force represents little more than a third of our 16 and over population. About the same percent as we had in 1978 and the economy was not too bad. In fact, it was an even higher than that (sometimes over 40%) from the 1940's through the 1970's and we had some good economies during those decades.

The stark reality is the labor force participation rate reflects demographics more than it does the health of the job market or the economy and the only reason rightards keep harping on it is because we have a Democrat in the White House.

The 100 million number offered by republican sources, or the 93 million that they try to use more commonly, has been fact checked by several sources that are impartial, and always comes out to be the same. Here is an example:
"The number cited by Perry in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe program Friday—which is also making the rounds in Republican-leaning media—counts everybody of working age in the U.S. who's not in prison or otherwise institutionalized and could, theoretically, be in the the labor force if they wanted to be.

That would include people who have retired or are too disabled to work, full-time college students, and parents staying home to care for children. Hence the careful way Perry constructed his statement as “people not working.”
Parsing Rick Perry's Numbers on People Without Jobs
So, the 100, or 93, million number is a lie. Simple ordinary lie that has been disproved many times. Unless you consider people who have retired as unemployed, or those that physically can not work, or those in college, or stay at home parents. Someone who quotes a number like this is either butt stupid or a liar.

 

[Oldstyle]

[QUOTE="

If they don't want or need to work, so what? And the vast majority of them don't want to.

Let's try this again, since you wouldn't answer the first time... Of what significance towards indicating the health of the job market do you delude yourself into believing the labor force participation rate plays?

This has been explained to you many time but you continue to pretend you are ignorant..or are you really that ignorant?

Really? Then either you can show any post between post #1565 (where I asked for the first time) ... and post #1590, where gipper finally tried to explain it.

If you don't show such a post, you expose yourself as just another lying con tool like your
brethren, Oldstyle.

I'm curious, Faun...do you consider Rshermr to be truthful? Or does the board's resident George Costanza get a pass from you when he starts shoveling his bullshit?

 

[Oldstyle]

"shadowstats is a legit website"

Their numbers are bullshit. Hardly a legit site. He bases his numbers from the U-6 rate and then adds in more folks he thinks want a job. Magically, he comes up with a rate 2½ times higher than the U-6. Keep in mind, if you factor in every soul in the U.S. aged 16 and over who is not working, they represent 37%. That includes folks who retire, stay at home moms/dads, independently wealthy who don't want to work, folks collecting government checks who don't want to work, high school students who don't want to work, people actually working in the shadow economy, etc...

But I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who thinks senior citizens are not counted in unemployment statistics; so there's no chance you will understand any of this. Which leads me to point out that I'm not posting this for you -- you're beyond help. I'm posting this for the benefit of others so they too can see just how flippin' insane you are.

Typical of Progressives. Facts and the truth cause them to break out in cold sweats, get light headed and fall over like a log. Shadowstats is a legitimate website and we understand that you know that as well. If you did not, you wouldn't have to make such a fool of yourself with all you ridicule.

Oh? What's the formula shadowstats uses for their unemployment rate?

45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.

I listen to economists on youtube all the time like Jim Willie that have been claiming the real Unemployment is over 20 percent if not higher for the last three years. I know that becasuse you are a shill for the Barrypuppet that you want to pretend like everything is great and wonderful but the fact remains is that things suck for 101 million people that are on some type of "gubermint" subsidy while Barrypuppet allows in illegals and flies in muslim refugees that WE have to pay for. Your rose colored glasses keep you from seeing the real truth....enjoy.

Well maybe you can answer the question then that Markle could not ....

What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?

Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr! (eye-roll)

 

[Rshermr]

What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr! (eye-roll)

Oldstyle, as usual, is trying to float another lie. He suggests that I did not provide him with a formula he desperately wants. Though he also claims it does not exist, and/or would not be real. Odd that he wants something so badly that he does not believe is valid. But beyond that, I offered it to him with a simple condition. That being that he provide the name of a bill that republicans sent up to combat the damages from the Great Republican Recession of 2008. He agreed, but then could never find such a bill. Seems that Republicans did not believe they needed to help the people from the damages of their very own recession. Now, he indicates whenever possible that there was no such condition. Which I have proven to be a lie, by showing the post with the condition. But, as a con tool, he just keeps on lying. Over and over and over. So, I have kept my promise, but he has not kept his. And, in order to help him understand how honor works, I can not provide him anything that he has not kept up his promise on.
You would think he would thank me for helping him understand what honor is all about, but he seems not to care. Typical con troll.

Oh, and OS also has an eye problem. Needs to see a doctor.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The government should spend to stimulate the economy during a recession.

100% stupid of course. Spending does stimulate and taxing to get the money to spend destimulates. 1+1=2 but not to a liberal.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?

[/QUOTE]

Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr! (eye-roll)

Oldstyle, as usual, is trying to float another lie. He suggests that I did not provide him with a formula he desperately wants. Though he also claims it does not exist, and/or would not be real. Odd that he wants something so badly that he does not believe is valid. But beyond that, I offered it to him with a simple condition. That being that he provide the name of a bill that republicans sent up to combat the damages from the Great Republican Recession of 2008. He agreed, but then could never find such a bill. Seems that Republicans did not believe they needed to help the people from the damages of their very own recession. Now, he indicates whenever possible that there was no such condition. Which I have proven to be a lie, by showing the post with the condition. But, as a con tool, he just keeps on lying. Over and over and over. So, I have kept my promise, but he has not kept his. And, in order to help him understand how honor works, I can not provide him anything that he has not kept up his promise on.
You would think he would thank me for helping him understand what honor is all about, but he seems not to care. Typical con troll.

Oh, and OS also has an eye problem. Needs to see a doctor.[/QUOTE]

You gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved"...proving once and for all what a complete fraud you are!

The only one who's ever been "desperate" for the formula the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved" is YOU, Georgie! I've known it didn't exist from the start. You were so ignorant that you actually thought it did. Now you posture with nonsense about conditions...when if you really HAD any honor...you'd admit that you were talking out of your ass and move on!

 

[Mcflipper]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Faun]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

So when Bush, campaigning for president in 2000, ran on the platform that we had a surplus, that it was the government overcharging us, and because of that he was going to give us a tax rebate and rax cuts -- he was lying?

"Today, our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend.

But they've got it backwards.

The surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money.

I will use this moment of opportunity to bring common sense and fairness to the tax code.

And I will act on principle.

On principle ... every family, every farmer and small businessperson, should be free to pass on their life's work to those they love.

So we will abolish the death tax.

On principle ... no one in America should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government.

So we will reduce tax rates for everyone, in every bracket.

On principle ... those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help.

So we will lower the bottom rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and double the child tax credit."​

 

[Rshermr]

What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?

Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr! (eye-roll)

Oldstyle, as usual, is trying to float another lie. He suggests that I did not provide him with a formula he desperately wants. Though he also claims it does not exist, and/or would not be real. Odd that he wants something so badly that he does not believe is valid. But beyond that, I offered it to him with a simple condition. That being that he provide the name of a bill that republicans sent up to combat the damages from the Great Republican Recession of 2008. He agreed, but then could never find such a bill. Seems that Republicans did not believe they needed to help the people from the damages of their very own recession. Now, he indicates whenever possible that there was no such condition. Which I have proven to be a lie, by showing the post with the condition. But, as a con tool, he just keeps on lying. Over and over and over. So, I have kept my promise, but he has not kept his. And, in order to help him understand how honor works, I can not provide him anything that he has not kept up his promise on.
You would think he would thank me for helping him understand what honor is all about, but he seems not to care. Typical con troll.

Oh, and OS also has an eye problem. Needs to see a doctor.[/QUOTE]

You gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved"...proving once and for all what a complete fraud you are!

The only one who's ever been "desperate" for the formula the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved" is YOU, Georgie! I've known it didn't exist from the start. You were so ignorant that you actually thought it did. Now you posture with nonsense about conditions...when if you really HAD any honor...you'd admit that you were talking out of your ass and move on![/QUOTE]

No, me boy. I can not give you something that you agreed to provide the condition to get. That would simply reward your classless and un-honorable behavior. You have shown no integrity. You agreed to show the bill in order to get the formula. Not my fault you did not. But, since you did not, no formula for you, me boy. But you could simply admit there is no bill, and move on. Then you would at least show a tad of honor. Not enough but some.

 

[Rshermr]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.
That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

[/QUOTE]

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

Problem is you heard wrong. Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up. But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points. Which, me boy, are lies.

 

[Oldstyle]

At

What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?

Gee, Faun...if you're looking for formulas...ask Rshermr! (eye-roll
Oldstyle, as usual, is trying to float another lie. He suggests that I did not provide him with a formula he desperately wants. Though he also claims it does not exist, and/or would not be real. Odd that he wants something so badly that he does not believe is valid. But beyond that, I offered it to him with a simple condition. That being that he provide the name of a bill that republicans sent up to combat the damages from the Great Republican Recession of 2008. He agreed, but then could never find such a bill. Seems that Republicans did not believe they needed to help the people from the damages of their very own recession. Now, he indicates whenever possible that there was no such condition. Which I have proven to be a lie, by showing the post with the condition. But, as a con tool, he just keeps on lying. Over and over and over. So, I have kept my promise, but he has not kept his. And, in order to help him understand how honor works, I can not provide him anything that he has not kept up his promise on.
You would think he would thank me for helping him understand what honor is all about, but he seems not to care. Typical con troll.

Oh, and OS also has an eye problem. Needs to see a doctor.

You gave me "A-B=Jobs Saved"...proving once and for all what a complete fraud you are!

The only one who's ever been "desperate" for the formula the Obama Administration used to determine "Jobs Saved" is YOU, Georgie! I've known it didn't exist from the start. You were so ignorant that you actually thought it did. Now you posture with nonsense about conditions...when if you really HAD any honor...you'd admit that you were talking out of your ass and move on![/QUOTE]

No, me boy. I can not give you something that you agreed to provide the condition to get. That would simply reward your classless and un-honorable behavior. You have shown no integrity. You agreed to show the bill in order to get the formula. Not my fault you did not. But, since you did not, no formula for you, me boy. But you could simply admit there is no bill, and move on. Then you would at least show a tad of honor. Not enough but some.[/QUOTE]


Is there anyone out there who thinks Rshermr has the formula? Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Oldstyle]

"No, me boy. I can not give you something that you agreed to provide the condition to get."

Here's a hint, Georgie...when you start posting convoluted sentences like THAT one...it's a sure sign that you're talking out of your ass!