Worst President in U.S. History

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

0% economic growth last quarter, and the lowest Labor Force Participation Rate since the 1970s....Thanks Obama!

The biggest reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is due to so many people retiring, and that trend is going to continue for another decade, but you already knew that. It just didn't fit into your argument very well, so you chose to not mention it.

Yep. It's all about the Baby Boomer effect.

Corporate mergers are also forcing people into retirement, especially those over the age of 50. I know a few of them myself. WSJ can barely keep up reporting about mergers and acquisitions, all too bad because corporate America is racing towards monopolies.

 

[boedicca]

0% economic growth last quarter, and the lowest Labor Force Participation Rate since the 1970s....Thanks Obama!

The biggest reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is due to so many people retiring, and that trend is going to continue for another decade, but you already knew that. It just didn't fit into your argument very well, so you chose to not mention it.

That has been thoroughly debunked in many other threads. The Labor Force Participation Rate is has been increasing for people of retirement age. Yes, there is some impact from Boomer retirement, but the youth unemployment is having a bigger impact:


The ALG study shows.

Specifically, 16-24 year olds failing to enter the labor force alone took 1.29 percent off the overall labor force participation rate. 25-54 year olds took a whopping 5.24 percent off the rate.

Meanwhile, these losses were offset by 55-64 year olds adding 2.39 percent back to the rate, and 65 years old and above adding another 1.13 percent.

By far the biggest contributors to the drop in participation were:

1. that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and
2. 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

In fact, if older Americans were not working longer — in the process adding 2.79 million to the civilian labor force — participation would be even lower than it already is at about 61.7 percent, instead of the 62.8 percent rate reported....

U.S. Unemployment Retirees Are Not The Labor Exodus Problem - Forbes

 

[boedicca]

0% economic growth last quarter, and the lowest Labor Force Participation Rate since the 1970s....Thanks Obama!

The biggest reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is due to so many people retiring, and that trend is going to continue for another decade, but you already knew that. It just didn't fit into your argument very well, so you chose to not mention it.

Yep. It's all about the Baby Boomer effect.

No, it's not. Older people are working at a higher rate, and those under 50 at lower rates.

 

[Faun]

I take this to mean you don't know what the term, "initial jobless claim," means?

Actually the initial jobless claim statistics can mean many things.

• People who are filing for unemployment for the first time is falling because:

1. There are less people being laid off, or
   
2. More people are taking lower paying jobs because their benefits have run out,or
3. More people have quit working, period

Initial jobless claims are people initially filing for unemployment benefits. Which has nothing at all to do with that idiot's brother exhausting his. Meaning when he said, "The reason jobless claims fell..." he followed that with a brain-dead contrived reason.

Oh, and #2 on your list has nothing to do with initial claims either.

I changed it.
No fucking shit Sherlock......thus the word "Initial" is used.

You changed it to an idiotic opinion. Who's waiting in long lines?

Actually it was realistic.

Less people are applying for benefits because of several reasons. None of them are written in stone.

If you take into account that fewer people are working than the last 37 years, initial claims statistics means several things.....and not all of them are good like you want to assume. You're trying to pull a jem out of a pile of shit and pass it off as being reflective of the pile of shit.

To shed some light on your delusions ... first and foremost, tracking initial jobless claims is an indicator of the health of the job market. Secondly, there are more people working today than ever before (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data) not "fewer than the last 37 years." And lastly, you haven't answered the question ... who's waiting on line to file for unemployment benifits? Between fewer people filing since 15 years ago ... being able to file on the ObamaNet ... being able to file on their ObamaPhone .... where are these "long" lines of which you speak?

 

[percysunshine]

I see that the left wing has assumed the proper avatar for their party.

Republicans as clowns.

"Republicans are clowns"


Fixed it for you

.
Joe Biden is their hero.

There...fixed it for you.

.

Perhaps since you are in the mood to be helpful, you could do what no other conservative seems to be able to do?

PLEASE show me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? Just one policy? PLEASE? lol

Is this a history as it actually occurred, or one of those parallel dimension fantasy histories that liberals tend to concoct so they won't go insane?

.

 

[Dad2three]

0% economic growth last quarter, and the lowest Labor Force Participation Rate since the 1970s....Thanks Obama!

The biggest reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is due to so many people retiring, and that trend is going to continue for another decade, but you already knew that. It just didn't fit into your argument very well, so you chose to not mention it.

That has been thoroughly debunked in many other threads. The Labor Force Participation Rate is has been increasing for people of retirement age. Yes, there is some impact from Boomer retirement, but the youth unemployment is having a bigger impact:


The ALG study shows.

Specifically, 16-24 year olds failing to enter the labor force alone took 1.29 percent off the overall labor force participation rate. 25-54 year olds took a whopping 5.24 percent off the rate.

Meanwhile, these losses were offset by 55-64 year olds adding 2.39 percent back to the rate, and 65 years old and above adding another 1.13 percent.

By far the biggest contributors to the drop in participation were:

1. 
   
   
   • that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and
   • 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

In fact, if older Americans were not working longer — in the process adding 2.79 million to the civilian labor force — participation would be even lower than it already is at about 61.7 percent, instead of the 62.8 percent rate reported....

U.S. Unemployment Retirees Are Not The Labor Exodus Problem - Forbes



View attachment 39003

MORE right wing nonsense


The ‘demographics’ story

But a number of economists are arguing that the recession is distracting people from the real story — long-run demographic trends that have nothing to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled “Dispelling an Urban Legend,” Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


A smaller workforce means less growth

.... But the other 65 percent are people who have left the labor force and do not want a job. The biggest chunk of that group seems to be composed of baby boomers, those 55 and older, who have decided to retire early.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually the initial jobless claim statistics can mean many things.

• People who are filing for unemployment for the first time is falling because:

1. There are less people being laid off, or
   
2. More people are taking lower paying jobs because their benefits have run out,or
3. More people have quit working, period

Initial jobless claims are people initially filing for unemployment benefits. Which has nothing at all to do with that idiot's brother exhausting his. Meaning when he said, "The reason jobless claims fell..." he followed that with a brain-dead contrived reason.

Oh, and #2 on your list has nothing to do with initial claims either.

I changed it.
No fucking shit Sherlock......thus the word "Initial" is used.

You changed it to an idiotic opinion. Who's waiting in long lines?

Actually it was realistic.

Less people are applying for benefits because of several reasons. None of them are written in stone.

If you take into account that fewer people are working than the last 37 years, initial claims statistics means several things.....and not all of them are good like you want to assume. You're trying to pull a jem out of a pile of shit and pass it off as being reflective of the pile of shit.

To shed some light on your delusions ... first and foremost, tracking initial jobless claims is an indicator of the health of the job market. Secondly, there are more people working today than ever before (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data) not "fewer than the last 37 years." And lastly, you haven't answered the question ... who's waiting on line to file for unemployment benifits? Between fewer people filing since 15 years ago ... being able to file on the ObamaNet ... being able to file on their ObamaPhone .... where are these "long" lines of which you speak?

Tracking initial claims isn't the only indication of the health of the job market.....especially when you're doing your best to ignore indications that tell a totally different story. Like labor participation.


If employment agencies are being flooded with people trying to take advantage of benefits, and the government is taking it's sweet time addressing those claims....its fair to assume that that fewer initial claims are making it through the process. It's like the Veteran's administration slowing down the process or the IRS not handing refunds efficiently. Slow down the process and the numbers go down along with it. So a drop in initial claims means little or nothing if the system is overtaxed with claims or new regulations are slowing down the process. Working in the government for as many years as I have makes this a very real possibility. Especially if you have a White House bunging up the process with thousands of hard to understand regulations.

 

[Dad2three]

I see that the left wing has assumed the proper avatar for their party.

Republicans as clowns.

"Republicans are clowns"


Fixed it for you

.
Joe Biden is their hero.

There...fixed it for you.

.

Perhaps since you are in the mood to be helpful, you could do what no other conservative seems to be able to do?

PLEASE show me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? Just one policy? PLEASE? lol

Is this a history as it actually occurred, or one of those parallel dimension fantasy histories that liberals tend to concoct so they won't go insane?


.

The irony after you posted about Biden, lol


But I'll accept YOU can't think of even one policy conservatives have been on the correct side of history on in the US either Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

0% economic growth last quarter, and the lowest Labor Force Participation Rate since the 1970s....Thanks Obama!

The biggest reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is due to so many people retiring, and that trend is going to continue for another decade, but you already knew that. It just didn't fit into your argument very well, so you chose to not mention it.

Yep. It's all about the Baby Boomer effect.

No, it's not. Older people are working at a higher rate, and those under 50 at lower rates.

View attachment 39004

 

[PredFan]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Really nut job? How many times does the truth have to be explained to you before it gets through your incredibly thick skull.

God damned Progressives are the stupidest people on the planet.

 

[Dad2three]

Initial jobless claims are people initially filing for unemployment benefits. Which has nothing at all to do with that idiot's brother exhausting his. Meaning when he said, "The reason jobless claims fell..." he followed that with a brain-dead contrived reason.

Oh, and #2 on your list has nothing to do with initial claims either.

I changed it.
No fucking shit Sherlock......thus the word "Initial" is used.

You changed it to an idiotic opinion. Who's waiting in long lines?

Actually it was realistic.

Less people are applying for benefits because of several reasons. None of them are written in stone.

If you take into account that fewer people are working than the last 37 years, initial claims statistics means several things.....and not all of them are good like you want to assume. You're trying to pull a jem out of a pile of shit and pass it off as being reflective of the pile of shit.

To shed some light on your delusions ... first and foremost, tracking initial jobless claims is an indicator of the health of the job market. Secondly, there are more people working today than ever before (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data) not "fewer than the last 37 years." And lastly, you haven't answered the question ... who's waiting on line to file for unemployment benifits? Between fewer people filing since 15 years ago ... being able to file on the ObamaNet ... being able to file on their ObamaPhone .... where are these "long" lines of which you speak?

Tracking initial claims isn't the only indication of the health of the job market.....especially when you're doing your best to ignore indications that tell a totally different story. Like labor participation.


If employment agencies are being flooded with people trying to take advantage of benefits, and the government is taking it's sweet time addressing those claims....its fair to assume that that fewer initial claims are making it through the process. It's like the Veteran's administration slowing down the process or the IRS not handing refunds efficiently. Slow down the process and the numbers go down along with it. So a drop in initial claims means little or nothing if the system is overtaxed with claims or new regulations are slowing down the process. Working in the government for as many years as I have makes this a very real possibility. Especially if you have a White House bunging up the process with thousands of hard to understand regulations.

Record Corp profits, lowest sustained tax burden on the "job creators", lowest share of labor costs EVER recorded, but Gov't is doing something wrong?


PERHAPS IT'S THE "JOB CREATORS" WHO NEED TO STEP UP AND GIVE US SOMETHING FOR THE TRILLIONS IN TAX CUTS??? Just saying!

 

[boedicca]

0% economic growth last quarter, and the lowest Labor Force Participation Rate since the 1970s....Thanks Obama!

The biggest reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is due to so many people retiring, and that trend is going to continue for another decade, but you already knew that. It just didn't fit into your argument very well, so you chose to not mention it.

Yep. It's all about the Baby Boomer effect.

No, it's not. Older people are working at a higher rate, and those under 50 at lower rates.

View attachment 39004

Your data is not broken out by the level of detail I provided.

 

[Dad2three]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Really nut job? How many times does the truth have to be explained to you before it gets through your incredibly thick skull.

God damned Progressives are the stupidest people on the planet.

Stop projecting Bubba, people will confuse you with a drug addicted, child sexual predator radio host!

 

[PredFan]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Really nut job? How many times does the truth have to be explained to you before it gets through your incredibly thick skull.

God damned Progressives are the stupidest people on the planet.

Stop projecting Bubba, people will confuse you with a drug addicted, child sexual predator radio host!

Grow up moron.

 

[mudwhistle]

I changed it.
No fucking shit Sherlock......thus the word "Initial" is used.

You changed it to an idiotic opinion. Who's waiting in long lines?

Actually it was realistic.

Less people are applying for benefits because of several reasons. None of them are written in stone.

If you take into account that fewer people are working than the last 37 years, initial claims statistics means several things.....and not all of them are good like you want to assume. You're trying to pull a jem out of a pile of shit and pass it off as being reflective of the pile of shit.

To shed some light on your delusions ... first and foremost, tracking initial jobless claims is an indicator of the health of the job market. Secondly, there are more people working today than ever before (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data) not "fewer than the last 37 years." And lastly, you haven't answered the question ... who's waiting on line to file for unemployment benifits? Between fewer people filing since 15 years ago ... being able to file on the ObamaNet ... being able to file on their ObamaPhone .... where are these "long" lines of which you speak?

Tracking initial claims isn't the only indication of the health of the job market.....especially when you're doing your best to ignore indications that tell a totally different story. Like labor participation.


If employment agencies are being flooded with people trying to take advantage of benefits, and the government is taking it's sweet time addressing those claims....its fair to assume that that fewer initial claims are making it through the process. It's like the Veteran's administration slowing down the process or the IRS not handing refunds efficiently. Slow down the process and the numbers go down along with it. So a drop in initial claims means little or nothing if the system is overtaxed with claims or new regulations are slowing down the process. Working in the government for as many years as I have makes this a very real possibility. Especially if you have a White House bunging up the process with thousands of hard to understand regulations.

Record Corp profits, lowest sustained tax burden on the "job creators", lowest share of labor costs EVER recorded, but Gov't is doing something wrong?


PERHAPS IT'S THE "JOB CREATORS" WHO NEED TO STEP UP AND GIVE US SOMETHING FOR THE TRILLIONS IN TAX CUTS??? Just saying!

So why does so many of Obama's friend owe taxes?

Al Sharpton owes millions. The CEO for General Electric was working for the current administration and paid nothing. Anyone who does favors for Obama gets huge breaks on their taxes. Obama has paid trillions of dollars into the bond market with taxpayers' money.

Why don't you bitch to Obama, because he's causing this......

 

[Dad2three]

0% economic growth last quarter, and the lowest Labor Force Participation Rate since the 1970s....Thanks Obama!

The biggest reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is due to so many people retiring, and that trend is going to continue for another decade, but you already knew that. It just didn't fit into your argument very well, so you chose to not mention it.

Yep. It's all about the Baby Boomer effect.

No, it's not. Older people are working at a higher rate, and those under 50 at lower rates.

View attachment 39004

Your data is not broken out by the level of detail I provided.

Yeah, your guy from Citizens for a limited Gov't did a good job there Bubs, lol

AGAIN:



Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.



The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Yup, that's what he is. Obama has just really fucked this country up. Yup, he sure has.

It's a bad day at the Wall Street Journal when they have to go to press with news like this. They're going to have to revert their Op Ed section back to....Op Ed, instead of "Why We Hate Obama".

Jobless Claims Fall By 20,000 in March 28 Week
Initial claims for jobless benefits near the lowest level in 15 years
Jobless Claims Fall By 20 000 in March 28 Week - WSJ
WASHINGTON—The number of Americans seeking first-time unemployment benefits fell to near the lowest level in 15 years last week, a sign of continued improvement in the labor market.

Initial jobless claims decreased by 20,000 to a seasonally adjusted 268,000 in the week ended March 28, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 285,000 new claims.

Last week’s level was just about above the 267,000 new claims filed in the Jan. 24 week. Claims that week were the lowest since the spring of 2000."""

Right before the idiots elected Dubya!

Really nut job? How many times does the truth have to be explained to you before it gets through your incredibly thick skull.

God damned Progressives are the stupidest people on the planet.

Stop projecting Bubba, people will confuse you with a drug addicted, child sexual predator radio host!

Grow up moron.

I wish you would stop projecting Bubba

You working on the ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US Bubs?

 

[Dad2three]

You changed it to an idiotic opinion. Who's waiting in long lines?

Actually it was realistic.

Less people are applying for benefits because of several reasons. None of them are written in stone.

If you take into account that fewer people are working than the last 37 years, initial claims statistics means several things.....and not all of them are good like you want to assume. You're trying to pull a jem out of a pile of shit and pass it off as being reflective of the pile of shit.

To shed some light on your delusions ... first and foremost, tracking initial jobless claims is an indicator of the health of the job market. Secondly, there are more people working today than ever before (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data) not "fewer than the last 37 years." And lastly, you haven't answered the question ... who's waiting on line to file for unemployment benifits? Between fewer people filing since 15 years ago ... being able to file on the ObamaNet ... being able to file on their ObamaPhone .... where are these "long" lines of which you speak?

Tracking initial claims isn't the only indication of the health of the job market.....especially when you're doing your best to ignore indications that tell a totally different story. Like labor participation.


If employment agencies are being flooded with people trying to take advantage of benefits, and the government is taking it's sweet time addressing those claims....its fair to assume that that fewer initial claims are making it through the process. It's like the Veteran's administration slowing down the process or the IRS not handing refunds efficiently. Slow down the process and the numbers go down along with it. So a drop in initial claims means little or nothing if the system is overtaxed with claims or new regulations are slowing down the process. Working in the government for as many years as I have makes this a very real possibility. Especially if you have a White House bunging up the process with thousands of hard to understand regulations.

Record Corp profits, lowest sustained tax burden on the "job creators", lowest share of labor costs EVER recorded, but Gov't is doing something wrong?


PERHAPS IT'S THE "JOB CREATORS" WHO NEED TO STEP UP AND GIVE US SOMETHING FOR THE TRILLIONS IN TAX CUTS??? Just saying!

So why does so many of Obama's friend owe taxes?

Al Sharpton owes millions. The CEO for General Electric was working for the current administration and paid nothing. Anyone who does favors for Obama gets huge breaks on their taxes. Obama has paid trillions of dollars into the bond market.

Why don't you bitch to Obama, because he's causing this......

Weird, you mean people owe taxes and others don't have a tax burden? Weird, what does the GOP plan to do in Congress about this? Oh right they want to give the ":job creators" MORE tax breaks, lol

Obama causing? You think Obama is solely responsible for the 8+ million private sector jobs created under him the past 6+ years? Doubling the stock market and cutting the deficit by 2/3rds and getting US back near where Ronnie Reagan cut US in revenues, 17%+ of GDP from the 15% Dubya took US to? Not as good as the nearly 20-% Cater/Clinton had US at, but much better right?


Nah, I don't give Obama all the credit for that, he's simply leading US without the laissez faire BS the GOP tries!

 

[Faun]

I take this to mean you don't know what the term, "initial jobless claim," means?

Actually the initial jobless claim statistics can mean many things.

• People who are filing for unemployment for the first time is falling because:

1. There are less people being laid off, or
   
2. More people are taking lower paying jobs because their benefits have run out,or
3. More people have quit working, period

Initial jobless claims are people initially filing for unemployment benefits. Which has nothing at all to do with that idiot's brother exhausting his. Meaning when he said, "The reason jobless claims fell..." he followed that with a brain-dead contrived reason.

Oh, and #2 on your list has nothing to do with initial claims either.

I changed it.
No fucking shit Sherlock......thus the word "Initial" is used.

You changed it to an idiotic opinion. Who's waiting in long lines?

These folks.......the other people that have filed before have to wait in the same lines as those applying for initial claims.
Americans Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time 62.7 Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low CNS News
God you're stoopid...

I take this to mean you don't know what the term, "initial jobless claim," means?

Actually the initial jobless claim statistics can mean many things.

• People who are filing for unemployment for the first time is falling because:

1. There are less people being laid off, or
   
2. More people are taking lower paying jobs because their benefits have run out,or
3. More people have quit working, period

Initial jobless claims are people initially filing for unemployment benefits. Which has nothing at all to do with that idiot's brother exhausting his. Meaning when he said, "The reason jobless claims fell..." he followed that with a brain-dead contrived reason.

Oh, and #2 on your list has nothing to do with initial claims either.

I changed it.
No fucking shit Sherlock......thus the word "Initial" is used.

You changed it to an idiotic opinion. Who's waiting in long lines?

These folks.......the other people that have filed before have to wait in the same lines as those applying for initial claims.
Americans Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time 62.7 Labor Force Participation Matches 37-Year Low CNS News
God you're stoopid...

Pretty fucking stupid since the number of unemployed decreased last month by a 130,000.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Meaning the increase in the not in labor force is largely due to 15 year olds turning 16, baby boomers retiring, people whose unemployment benefits ran out, and people unemployed for an extended period of time who have given up looking.

What it doesn't include are people who are eligible to file for unemployment benefits.

 

[healthmyths]

Actually it was realistic.

Less people are applying for benefits because of several reasons. None of them are written in stone.

If you take into account that fewer people are working than the last 37 years, initial claims statistics means several things.....and not all of them are good like you want to assume. You're trying to pull a jem out of a pile of shit and pass it off as being reflective of the pile of shit.

To shed some light on your delusions ... first and foremost, tracking initial jobless claims is an indicator of the health of the job market. Secondly, there are more people working today than ever before (Bureau of Labor Statistics Data) not "fewer than the last 37 years." And lastly, you haven't answered the question ... who's waiting on line to file for unemployment benifits? Between fewer people filing since 15 years ago ... being able to file on the ObamaNet ... being able to file on their ObamaPhone .... where are these "long" lines of which you speak?

Tracking initial claims isn't the only indication of the health of the job market.....especially when you're doing your best to ignore indications that tell a totally different story. Like labor participation.


If employment agencies are being flooded with people trying to take advantage of benefits, and the government is taking it's sweet time addressing those claims....its fair to assume that that fewer initial claims are making it through the process. It's like the Veteran's administration slowing down the process or the IRS not handing refunds efficiently. Slow down the process and the numbers go down along with it. So a drop in initial claims means little or nothing if the system is overtaxed with claims or new regulations are slowing down the process. Working in the government for as many years as I have makes this a very real possibility. Especially if you have a White House bunging up the process with thousands of hard to understand regulations.

Record Corp profits, lowest sustained tax burden on the "job creators", lowest share of labor costs EVER recorded, but Gov't is doing something wrong?


PERHAPS IT'S THE "JOB CREATORS" WHO NEED TO STEP UP AND GIVE US SOMETHING FOR THE TRILLIONS IN TAX CUTS??? Just saying!

So why does so many of Obama's friend owe taxes?

Al Sharpton owes millions. The CEO for General Electric was working for the current administration and paid nothing. Anyone who does favors for Obama gets huge breaks on their taxes. Obama has paid trillions of dollars into the bond market.

Why don't you bitch to Obama, because he's causing this......

Weird, you mean people owe taxes and others don't have a tax burden? Weird, what does the GOP plan to do in Congress about this? Oh right they want to give the ":job creators" MORE tax breaks, lol

Obama causing? You think Obama is solely responsible for the 8+ million private sector jobs created under him the past 6+ years? Doubling the stock market and cutting the deficit by 2/3rds and getting US back near where Ronnie Reagan cut US in revenues, 17%+ of GDP from the 15% Dubya took US to? Not as good as the nearly 20-% Cater/Clinton had US at, but much better right?


Nah, I don't give Obama all the credit for that, he's simply leading US without the laissez faire BS the GOP tries!

What do you mean.."he's simply leading US without the laissez faire BS the GOP tries!"
So let's dissect that statement...
Obama is leading the US right?
He is doing so "without the laissez-faire:" ...."without" means NOT doing what? "Laissez-faire?"
The definition of "Laissez-faire"... an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let [them] do," but it broadly implies "let it be," "let them do as they will," or "leave it alone."
So you are showing why LIPs are so dumb!
Using your statement Obama not using "laissez-faire" means OBAMA IS USING..."rules,regulations,etc. interfering with private parties."
Which is TRUE! Obama's administration has
Data collected by researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center shows that the Code of Federal Regulations, where all rules and regulations are detailed, has ballooned from 71,224 pages in 1975 to 174,545 pages last year.
More “major rules,” those with an annual economic impact exceeding $100 million, were enacted in 2010 than in any year dating back to at least 1997, according to the CRS.



And over Obama’s first three years in office, the Code of Federal Regulations increased by 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by the Chamber of Commerce. In comparison, the regulatory code grew by 4.4 percent during Bush’s first term. 


“All incentives are to regulate more,” said Susan Dudley, the director of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center.
REGULATION NATION Obama oversees expansion of the regulatory state TheHill

NOW do you understand your statement? Obama IS LEADING the country with more rules and regulations then any other President in history and
this adds up to an annual total waste of $1,863,000,000,000! That's 1.8 Trillion dollars WASTED!

U.S. Regulatory Costs: More than GDP of Canada, Australia
Households pay nearly $15,000 per year for regulation

Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released the latest edition of its annual report, “Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Regulatory State,” which surveys the costs and burdens imposed by federal regulations. Authored by Wayne Crews, CEI’s Vice President for Policy, the report compiles government and private data on the number and cost of regulations, as well as the agencies that issue them.

“The picture painted by this indispensable report is a bleak one, as it shows the federal regulatory bureaucracy growing larger year after year,” said CRS President and CEO Karen Kerrigan. “The costs of burdensome rules and bureaucracy are hidden from view, but they are brutally apparent for small business owners and their workers, who forfeit an ever-increasing share of their paychecks to regulation. And don’t forget the dispirited entrepreneur, who, when faced with a mountain of regulation and red tape, decides that starting a new business or introducing a new technology just isn’t worth it.”

Download the full report HERE.

Key findings from the CEI report include the following:

• Costs for Americans to comply with federal regulations reached $1.863 trillion in 2013, which is more than the GDP of Canada or Australia. In fact, if U.S. regulation were a country, it would have the 10th largest economy worldwide, ranked between India and Italy.

The Center for Regulatory Solutions U.S. Regulatory Costs More than GDP of Canada Australia