Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bush has never been even remotely Liberal. He spent recklessly, grew government, bailed out the private sector, and pissed on the U.S. Constitution just like St Ronnie and every other CON$ervoFascist.But you DID count it for Bush's UE rate!!!!! 10 million dropped out of the labor force during the Bush Regime that YOU did not count as unemployed, and they were not Boomers retiring like under Obama.Bwahahahahahah!!!!
The day Bush left office unemployment was at 7.8%. It has never been below 8% during the Obama regime of terror (lowering it because people have given up and permanently left the job market because Obama has promised them permanent unemployment does not count chief. Any other lies you want to attempt??? Please note all of the accurate statistics below which outline where they were the day Obama was inaugurated:
Ed, where do you get that I "did" anything? Bush is your guy. Not ours. Bush was a hard core liberal who spent recklessly, grew government, bailed out the private sector, and pissed on the U.S. Constitution. In other words, step-by-step the exact same radical left-wing policies that Obama has given us (Obama just gives it to us in larger doses since he's in a rush to collapse America before the end of his final term).
I've slammed Bush relentlessly for being the liberal he is and you're inability to see he is the ultimate liberal god who you would worship had he had a little "d" next to his name is proof of what an absolutely blind partisan hack you are.
Very few jobs are "lost to retirement." When someone retires, someone else usually fills that same job. Disability award rates grew at the same rate or greater during the Bush Regime, so it has nothing to do with Obama or changing the rules but only to the aging of the workforce.By not counting more and more workers.. by giving more and more of those not working government disability... the labor force participation rate is the lowest in 40+ years... the jobs that are allegedly 'gained' are less than the ones leaving the workforce... sounds like a loss to me and any other person who thinks logically
The labor participation rate will continue to decline over the next two decades
yet jobs lost to retirement outnumber those created or replacing them... as stated, negative employment... with more vacating jobs and less in the working age, employment numbers should be MUCH better.. it is not because of the governmental policies and things such as allowing more and more people to claim disability who are not disabled
It took until the early 50's for us to completely recover from the depression. Takes infrastructure, science, education and good policies.
This is the formula that works world fucking wide!
Very few jobs are "lost to retirement." When someone retires, someone else usually fills that same job. Disability award rates grew at the same rate or greater during the Bush Regime, so it has nothing to do with Obama or changing the rules but only to the aging of the workforce.The labor participation rate will continue to decline over the next two decades
yet jobs lost to retirement outnumber those created or replacing them... as stated, negative employment... with more vacating jobs and less in the working age, employment numbers should be MUCH better.. it is not because of the governmental policies and things such as allowing more and more people to claim disability who are not disabled
It took until the early 50's for us to completely recover from the depression. Takes infrastructure, science, education and good policies.
This is the formula that works world fucking wide!
lol....
you truly ARE a child.
I wonder what Japan thinks about your theory.
LMFAO....the missing decade....likely before you were born.
You are truly clueless. An economic idiot who regurgitates what you hear on MSNBC
And those are among the FEW that are lost to retirement. YOU are making shit up if you think that buying people out to retire early is the norm!Very few jobs are "lost to retirement." When someone retires, someone else usually fills that same job. Disability award rates grew at the same rate or greater during the Bush Regime, so it has nothing to do with Obama or changing the rules but only to the aging of the workforce.yet jobs lost to retirement outnumber those created or replacing them... as stated, negative employment... with more vacating jobs and less in the working age, employment numbers should be MUCH better.. it is not because of the governmental policies and things such as allowing more and more people to claim disability who are not disabled
few jobs are lost to retirement?
Wow.
Another one who makes shit up to try to win a debate.
Companies "buy out" people to retire early you fucking moron.
It is a way to decrease headcount without increasing unemployment liability you fucking idiot.
It took until the early 50's for us to completely recover from the depression. Takes infrastructure, science, education and good policies.
This is the formula that works world fucking wide!
I nailed you on this lie in another thread a while ago, and all you have done is slink off and repeat the lie here.You really are one dumb fuck, aren't you?
Government/public sector jobs WENT UP during the REAGAN/BUSH years.
And DOWN during the OBAMA years.
No they did not.. state and local governmental jobs went down.. federal increased.. that is under Obama control
As I pointed out to you there were 2,795,000 fed employees when Obama took office and 2,717,000 now. You then backtracked from your lie by saying it was not a big reduction. The fact remains that a reduction is not an "increase" and claiming fed workers increased is a lie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/10/Screen-shot-2012-10-05-at-2.10.13-PM.png
Reagan had a congress that wanted to invest in America and had vision! Obama is doing what he's doing with his hands tied by people that hate government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/10/Screen-shot-2012-10-05-at-2.10.13-PM.png
Reagan had a congress that wanted to invest in America and had vision! Obama is doing what he's doing with his hands tied by people that hate government.
Very few jobs are "lost to retirement." When someone retires, someone else usually fills that same job. Disability award rates grew at the same rate or greater during the Bush Regime, so it has nothing to do with Obama or changing the rules but only to the aging of the workforce.yet jobs lost to retirement outnumber those created or replacing them... as stated, negative employment... with more vacating jobs and less in the working age, employment numbers should be MUCH better.. it is not because of the governmental policies and things such as allowing more and more people to claim disability who are not disabled
few jobs are lost to retirement?
Wow.
Another one who makes shit up to try to win a debate.
Companies "buy out" people to retire early you fucking moron.
It is a way to decrease headcount without increasing unemployment liability you fucking idiot.
It took until the early 50's for us to completely recover from the depression. Takes infrastructure, science, education and good policies.
This is the formula that works world fucking wide!
lol....
you truly ARE a child.
I wonder what Japan thinks about your theory.
LMFAO....the missing decade....likely before you were born.
You are truly clueless. An economic idiot who regurgitates what you hear on MSNBC
While it is true that the decrease is due to PO reductions, it still does not support the claim that fed jobs increased, whether you give Obama credit or not.I nailed you on this lie in another thread a while ago, and all you have done is slink off and repeat the lie here.No they did not.. state and local governmental jobs went down.. federal increased.. that is under Obama control
As I pointed out to you there were 2,795,000 fed employees when Obama took office and 2,717,000 now. You then backtracked from your lie by saying it was not a big reduction. The fact remains that a reduction is not an "increase" and claiming fed workers increased is a lie.
much of that decrease was from the Post Office reducing their numbers and Obama had absolutely nothing to do with that......
The jobs are waiting for a normal infrastructure/jobs act, dingbats.
Record corporate profits could create jobs if record corporate profits were spent on creating jobs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/10/Screen-shot-2012-10-05-at-2.10.13-PM.png
Reagan had a congress that wanted to invest in America and had vision! Obama is doing what he's doing with his hands tied by people that hate government.
More drama from the left. We spend more on education than any other country. Why the hell are we not at the top in terms of education?
