1
Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

EconomyFollow

#1 Oct 02 2015 at 7:16 AM Rating: Decent
Nearly 95 million not in the labor force.

Obama's America.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/record-94610000-americans-not-labor-force/

#2 Oct 02 2015 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
President Trump will save us Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Oct 02 2015 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Trump University to the rescue. Or Trump Luxury Airlines! Trump Casinos!

Edited, Oct 2nd 2015 12:12pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Oct 02 2015 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
wowbaggerhead wrote:
Nearly 95 million not in the labor force.

Obama's America.


Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5 Oct 02 2015 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Poor-paying jobs > no jobs.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#6 Oct 02 2015 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
While the prior two months saw a labor force participation rate of 62.2 percent, September’s participation rate dropped to 62.4 percent, matching the lowest level seen since October 1977.


It dropped from 62.2 to 62.4? UH.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#7 Oct 02 2015 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Demea wrote:
Poor-paying jobs > no jobs.


I left out a comma, I meant "Great, Paying Jobs"
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#8 Oct 02 2015 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Quote:
While the prior two months saw a labor force participation rate of 62.2 percent, September’s participation rate dropped to 62.4 percent, matching the lowest level seen since October 1977.


It dropped from 62.2 to 62.4? UH.


Oh, you and your mathy arrogance.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#9 Oct 02 2015 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
That website looks like a legit source of reliable information. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#10 Oct 02 2015 at 3:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Breitbart? Sure, if the information you're looking for is "how crazy can right-wing authoritarian conspiracy theorists get, anyway?"

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#11 Oct 02 2015 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
wowbaggerhead wrote:
Nearly 95 million not in the labor force.

Obama's America.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/record-94610000-americans-not-labor-force/

Get a job, hippie.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 Oct 02 2015 at 5:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Or get a hippie job. Like patchouli salesman. Or ferret-sitter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Oct 02 2015 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.


All? No. More jobs than today? Yes. More better paying jobs than today? Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.

Oh. And the 62.2 thing was a typo, I guess. It was 62.6 percent in the previous months, and dropped to 62.4 percent. Not sure why one would need to link to Breitbart for this info, since it's widely available elsewhere.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Oct 02 2015 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.


All? No. More jobs than today? Yes. More better paying jobs than today? Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.

Until, you know, it crashed and burned near the end of his reign.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#15 Oct 02 2015 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.

Well, up until the end, anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Oct 02 2015 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.

Well, up until the end, anyway.


Yeah, stupid Obama, ruining the economy before he even got the job! Smiley: mad
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#17 Oct 02 2015 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.


Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.



Better. In what way, exactly? I am not really a fan of Obama, but it takes some well progressed amnesia to forget 2008. I forget. Who was the President then? Wait, maybe you mean we were safer? On whose watch 9/11 happened?

****** Cryst.. the **** dude. Does it mean America officially forgave Bush?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#18 Oct 02 2015 at 10:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.


Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.



Better. In what way, exactly? I am not really a fan of Obama, but it takes some well progressed amnesia to forget 2008. I forget. Who was the President then? Wait, maybe you mean we were safer? On whose watch 9/11 happened?

****** Cryst.. the **** dude. Does it mean America officially forgave Bush?


No worries. We could have brother-Bush in office before long maybe. You know he's good because he was the governor of Florida Smiley: nod
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#19 Oct 02 2015 at 10:13 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Nah, Trump is going to win the Republican nomination.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#20 Oct 02 2015 at 11:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Even better! The day he becomes president will be a proud day for clowns everywhere.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2015 5:23am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#21 Oct 02 2015 at 11:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.


All? No. More jobs than today? Yes. More better paying jobs than today? Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.

Until, you know, it crashed and burned near the end of his reign.


But on average better than it's been during Obama's reign, right? You have to look at the entire 8 years, not just cherry pick the worst one. Obama's economy hasn't yet managed to recover to where Bush's was. I suppose you could just blame that on just how bad things were when the housing market crashed in 2008, or you could maybe suggest that Obama didn't manage the results of that crash well and didn't figure out a way to get the economy back on track. It's kinda the point to showing that even though unemployment is finally back to where it was during most of the Bush administration, when you calculate in the labor participation rate, it actually is still much higher.

For many Americans, the crash back in 2008 is still negatively impacting them. At some point, you have to stop blaming the crash and start blaming the economic policies enacted after that crash.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Oct 02 2015 at 11:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.


Better. In what way, exactly? I am not really a fan of Obama, but it takes some well progressed amnesia to forget 2008. I forget. Who was the President then?


Again, you also can't forget the previous 7 years either. Playing the blame game for the housing market crash doesn't help all of those people who are still struggling today well past the time period in which the effects of that crash should have fade into distant memory. Obama's economic policies basically took a recession which should have hurt for 2-3 years and then recovered, and instead turned it into the status quo. The subsequent years of anemic recovery and economic growth are 100% his fault, and absolutely have resulted in worse economic conditions for "the people".

Do you honestly think that the economy has been better in the last 7 years on average than it was for the previous 8? Cause that seems like a hard position to support.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Oct 03 2015 at 12:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You have to look at the entire 8 years, not just cherry pick the worst one.

But aside from that, Mrs Kennedy, how did you enjoy the parade?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Oct 03 2015 at 1:04 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
The subsequent years of anemic recovery and economic growth are 100% his fault
Because presidents of the US have total, unlimited power?

If that was true there would never have been a crash.


Or a housing bubble.


Or 9/11.......
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#25 Oct 03 2015 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.


All? No. More jobs than today? Yes. More better paying jobs than today? Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.

Until, you know, it crashed and burned near the end of his reign.


But on average better than it's been during Obama's reign, right? You have to look at the entire 8 years, not just cherry pick the worst one. Obama's economy hasn't yet managed to recover to where Bush's was. I suppose you could just blame that on just how bad things were when the housing market crashed in 2008, or you could maybe suggest that Obama didn't manage the results of that crash well and didn't figure out a way to get the economy back on track. It's kinda the point to showing that even though unemployment is finally back to where it was during most of the Bush administration, when you calculate in the labor participation rate, it actually is still much higher.

For many Americans, the crash back in 2008 is still negatively impacting them. At some point, you have to stop blaming the crash and start blaming the economic policies enacted after that crash.


...

I can't tell whether you are serious. It is somewhat hard to decide which way I want to go with. Since that is the care, I will just go with the flow.

When you are talking about averages here, you are using the same kind of math used in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to prove that universe has no population. Observe.

Quote:
None. Although you might see people from time to time, they are most likely products of your imagination. Simple mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as makes no odds, therefore we can round the average population of the Universe to zero, and so the total population must be zero.


With that out of the way lets looks at the following sentence.

Quote:
You have to look at the entire 8 years, not just cherry pick the worst one. Obama's economy hasn't yet managed to recover to where Bush's was


Let us see. Where was Bush's economy and the end of the eight year reign? Low point in 2008 DOW was 8149. When Obama was taking over it was even lower. What is it now? At the end of Obama's reign of terror? So how did he do on average? He only ***************************************** doubled it[/link]. Yeah. On average he did so much worse than his predecessor.

Wait. Wait. Wait. I am cherry picking, right? We want to check averages and not just the worst time of the given president's reign, right?

Hwell, on ******* average, DOW was 10500 when he took office, and what was it again when he finished?

Again, there are valid complaints about Obama, but saying Bush's economy was better is not really supported by facts.

Maybe it was good for you? Are you basing your argument on an anecdote?

I reiterate my ******** cryst dude'.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#26 Oct 03 2015 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Remember when Bush was president, and we were all super rich, and had great paying jobs.


All? No. More jobs than today? Yes. More better paying jobs than today? Yes. Things were definitely better under Bush's economy than Obama's.

Until, you know, it crashed and burned near the end of his reign.


But on average better than it's been during Obama's reign, right? You have to look at the entire 8 years, not just cherry pick the worst one. Obama's economy hasn't yet managed to recover to where Bush's was. I suppose you could just blame that on just how bad things were when the housing market crashed in 2008, or you could maybe suggest that Obama didn't manage the results of that crash well and didn't figure out a way to get the economy back on track. It's kinda the point to showing that even though unemployment is finally back to where it was during most of the Bush administration, when you calculate in the labor participation rate, it actually is still much higher.

For many Americans, the crash back in 2008 is still negatively impacting them. At some point, you have to stop blaming the crash and start blaming the economic policies enacted after that crash.

By what standards, exactly? Markets are up, GDP is up, corporate profits are up...unemployment is still a bit high but that is I believe what you would call a "lagging indicator". Besides, with the markets, GDP and corporate profits booming do you really care about the workers anyways?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 269 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (269)