Worst President in U.S. History

[PredFan]

Actually, obama is NOT the worst president. That title goes to Woodrow Wilson. Obama is second.

 

[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.

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?

Like I said to you in the other thread; grow up moron.

 

[Faun]

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.

I never said it was the only indicator -- I said it is an indicator, which it is. As far as your claim about people not bothering to file because it's too inconvenient, if that were true, it would be true every week, so a drop to a 15 year low is still a consistent trend with previous weeks.

 

[Dad2three]

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

ALL that BS and the US STILL has record Corp profits? Weird right? The closest the US has EVER come to the laissez faire BS was under Harding/Coolidge period, Reagan and Dubya's. Now PLEASE tell me what those 3 times had in common again?



PLEASE point to this libertarian wonderland that exists where regulations are lax? lol


Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much

We asked experts, and most told us that while there is relatively little scholarship on the issue, the evidence so far is that the overall effect on jobs is minimal. Regulations do destroy some jobs, but they also create others. Mostly, they just shift jobs within the economy.

“The effects on jobs are negligible. They’re not job-creating or job-destroying on average,” said Richard Morgenstern, who served in the EPA from the Reagan to Clinton years and is now at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank.

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall Not So Much - ProPublica

 

[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.

I never said it was the only indicator -- I said it is an indicator, which it is. As far as your claim about people not bothering to file because it's too inconvenient, if that were true, it would be true every week, so a drop to a 15 year low is still a consistent trend with previous weeks.

Although not worth mentioning if you consider the fact that so many aren't working in the first place, if not getting laid off for the first time. And so many who have been laid off more than once isn't even mentioned, all the while you're so busy beating your chest over one statistic.

 

[mudwhistle]

If fewer are being hired for the first time, since teenage unemployment is very high, then one could assume that fewer would be laid off...for the first time as well......

 

[Dad2three]

If fewer are being hired for the first time, since teenage unemployment is very high, then one could assume that fewer would be laid off...for the first time as well......

 

[Freewill]

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

Republicans as clowns.

all I see are clowns.

 

[Freewill]

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.

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

One would think that as the labor force shrinks because of retirements the job opportunities for those in the labor force would sky rocket. Who in the hell are doing the jobs all these boomers did? Apparently they are going unfilled. It would seem that as a boomer leaves on of the 93 million take his job but that isn't happening.

Did you ever get off the political football and really think? The boomers leaving should open some very good job opportunities for the generation below them. Is that not happening? Were their jobs not worth filing? So for the labor force to decrease and the particpation rate to decrease that means that the number no working stays the same. In other words jobs are being lost somewhere.

 

[Freewill]

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

Republicans as clowns.

"Republicans are clowns"


Fixed it for you

Don't need clown make up for the liberals to be clowns:

 

[Faun]

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.

I never said it was the only indicator -- I said it is an indicator, which it is. As far as your claim about people not bothering to file because it's too inconvenient, if that were true, it would be true every week, so a drop to a 15 year low is still a consistent trend with previous weeks.

Although not worth mentioning if you consider the fact that so many aren't working in the first place, if not getting laid off for the first time. And so many who have been laid off more than once isn't even mentioned, all the while you're so busy beating your chest over one statistic.

Of the 93.2 million folks no in the labor force, 86.8 million of them don't want to work. Never before Obama became president have conservatives fought so adamantly to count retirees, students, housewives & househusbands, among the out of work.

 

[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.

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

One would think that as the labor force shrinks because of retirements the job opportunities for those in the labor force would sky rocket. Who in the hell are doing the jobs all these boomers did? Apparently they are going unfilled. It would seem that as a boomer leaves on of the 93 million take his job but that isn't happening.

Did you ever get off the political football and really think? The boomers leaving should open some very good job opportunities for the generation below them. Is that not happening? Were their jobs not worth filing? So for the labor force to decrease and the particpation rate to decrease that means that the number no working stays the same. In other words jobs are being lost somewhere.

YOU MEAN CORPS ARE MAKING MORE WITH LESS? Who knew?


Profits Just Hit Another All-Time High, Wages Just Hit Another All-Time Low

1) Corporate profit margins just hit another all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't. What they're suffering from is a myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation).

2) Wages as a percent of the economy just hit another all-time low. Why are corporate profits so high? One reason is that companies are paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are represent spending power for consumers. And consumer spending is "revenue" for other companies. So the profit obsession is actually starving the rest of the economy of revenue growth.

In short, our current obsessed-with-profits philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.
Profits At High Wages At Low - Business Insider





NOTE THIS:

 

[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

Don't need clown make up for the liberals to be clowns:

I'll wait patiently for ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of US history on OK???

 

[Faun]

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

Republicans as clowns.

"Republicans are clowns"


Fixed it for you

Don't need clown make up for the liberals to be clowns:

Well to be fair, Republicans don't need the clown makeup either...

 

[Dad2three]

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.

I never said it was the only indicator -- I said it is an indicator, which it is. As far as your claim about people not bothering to file because it's too inconvenient, if that were true, it would be true every week, so a drop to a 15 year low is still a consistent trend with previous weeks.

Although not worth mentioning if you consider the fact that so many aren't working in the first place, if not getting laid off for the first time. And so many who have been laid off more than once isn't even mentioned, all the while you're so busy beating your chest over one statistic.

Of the 93.2 million folks no in the labor force, 86.8 million of them don't want to work. Never before Obama became president have conservatives fought so adamantly to count retirees, students, housewives & househusbands, among the out of work.

After 12+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created in 6 years, AFTER Dubya lost 1+ million in 8, and Dubya's final F/Y deficit being reduced by 2/3rds, there is little they can bitch about so it's 100% created BS!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

YAWN

life as an unhinged left-wing idiot is so easy when you dont count your victims

Trolling is so much easier than addressing the subject, especially when it comes from a right wing newspaper.

amen to that.as I always say here,from here on out every president that gets in office from here on out will be more corrupt and worthless than the previous one because its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two so the american sheep think they have a choice in who gets elected.starting with the president that got in office in 1980 every president that gets in is always more corrupt and worthless than the previous one.

 

[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?

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...

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.

So you're calling me stupid and you simply repeat what I've already know.

The biggest thing you want to ignore is the percentage of Americans who are working is going down. There is aprox. 185 million people that are of working age, but 93 million of them aren't. Nearly half of those who are old enough to work, aren't, and the percentage is getting smaller every month. So what if 15 year olds are turning 16. If they can't find a job because nobody wants to pay an untrained kid $10 - 15/ hr, thanks to Democrats and their stupid policies, then obviously that will effect the labor participation rate.

I'm just trying to figure our what you think is good about that.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I never said it was the only indicator -- I said it is an indicator, which it is. As far as your claim about people not bothering to file because it's too inconvenient, if that were true, it would be true every week, so a drop to a 15 year low is still a consistent trend with previous weeks.

Although not worth mentioning if you consider the fact that so many aren't working in the first place, if not getting laid off for the first time. And so many who have been laid off more than once isn't even mentioned, all the while you're so busy beating your chest over one statistic.

Of the 93.2 million folks no in the labor force, 86.8 million of them don't want to work. Never before Obama became president have conservatives fought so adamantly to count retirees, students, housewives & househusbands, among the out of work.

After 12+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created in 6 years, AFTER Dubya lost 1+ million in 8, and Dubya's final F/Y deficit being reduced by 2/3rds, there is little they can bitch about so it's 100% created BS!

Now, point out the jobs program Obama signed that created this supposed 12 million jobs.

 

[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?

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...

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.

So you're calling me stupid and you simply repeat what I've already know.

The biggest thing you want to ignore is the percentage of Americans who are working is going down. There is aprox. 185 million people that are of working age, but 93 million of them aren't. Nearly half of those who are old enough to work, aren't, and the percentage is getting smaller every month. So what if 15 year olds are turning 16. If they can't find a job because nobody wants to pay an untrained kid $10 - 15/ hr, thanks to Democrats and their stupid policies, then obviously that will effect the labor participation rate.

I'm just trying to figure our what you think is good about that.

Analysis: Participation Rate Data Largely Skewed by Teens -


The latest data indicate that only 62.5 percent of non-institutionalized working age adults are employed or actively seeking employment. The remaining 37.5 percent, so the story goes, is so frustrated with the lack of opportunities that this group has simply dropped out of the labor market.

However, a new analysis of labor data released Tuesday by global outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. found that the largest decline in participation has occurred among 16- to 19-year-olds. While some teenagers are certainly frustrated, the fact is that the vast majority are not seeking a job because they do not want a job.

Analysis Participation Rate Data Largely Skewed by Teens Challenger Gray Christmas Inc.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

I never said it was the only indicator -- I said it is an indicator, which it is. As far as your claim about people not bothering to file because it's too inconvenient, if that were true, it would be true every week, so a drop to a 15 year low is still a consistent trend with previous weeks.

Although not worth mentioning if you consider the fact that so many aren't working in the first place, if not getting laid off for the first time. And so many who have been laid off more than once isn't even mentioned, all the while you're so busy beating your chest over one statistic.

Of the 93.2 million folks no in the labor force, 86.8 million of them don't want to work. Never before Obama became president have conservatives fought so adamantly to count retirees, students, housewives & househusbands, among the out of work.

After 12+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created in 6 years, AFTER Dubya lost 1+ million in 8, and Dubya's final F/Y deficit being reduced by 2/3rds, there is little they can bitch about so it's 100% created BS!

Now, point out the jobs program Obama signed that created this supposed 12 million jobs.

Well he DIDN'T sign onto $2+ trillion in tax cuts, THEN go to 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AS he cheered on a Bankster credit bubble because that was ALL he had, like Dubya right? lol


But UNLIKE conservatives, I don't blame Gov't when the private sector CHOOSES not to hire NOR do I blame Gov't when they do!!