reddogblitz Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 there's a surprise. the downward trend began in 2008 when the big banks and financial industry caused the economy to collapse. Anyone want to compare the state of the economy now vs the day Barack took office? I agree with Chef Jim however that president doesn't have all that much control of the economy just as a QB has little effect on how his team plays defense. Bill Clinton just squirreled out that the internet was exploding on the scene while he was in office for example. And you do know that 45% increase in food stamp recipients is a really BAD economic indicator? No, this is because Barack is a socialist.
GG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/ And this article rebuts the theory. The bigger picture is that the jobs that have returned are of lower quality than the jobs that were lost. Keep saddling employers with more taxes, fees and regulations and they'll find a way to do the same jobs with fewer people or pay them less. Maybe you can take a cue from the Chinese efforts to prop up a stock market to see how successful you'll be in shaming the economy back to health. there's a surprise. the downward trend began in 2008 when the big banks and financial industry caused the economy to collapse. Yup, the evil bankers did it all.
Magox Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down. But it’s also true that the decline has been even steeper than projected. For example, in that 2006 report, BLS projected the participation rate would decline to 64.5 percent in 2020. It’s already 1.7 percentage points below that in 2015. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in February 2014, “[T]he unusually low rate of labor force participation in recent years is attributable to three principal factors: long-term trends, especially the aging of the population; temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages; and some longer-term factors attributable to the unusual aspects of the slow recovery of the labor market, including persistently low hiring rates.” Interesting that the left wing Fact check decides to provide context for the decline in the labor participation rate, but not for the FB meme positive tidbits of the recovery. In any case 2) The bad economy is keeping workers in school and out of the labor force. Demographics can't entirely explain of the labor force fall, however. For one, the number of Americans working or actively seeking work has actually fallen faster than demographers had predicted: And here's another clue that this isn't just a demographic story: The participation rate for workers between ages 16 and 54 fell sharply during the recession and still hasn't recovered. Obviously retirements can't explain this: So what's going on? One theory is that the weak job market is causing people to simply give up looking for work — they're crumpling up their resumes and going home. A recent paper (pdf) from the Boston Fed suggested that these "non-inevitable dropouts" might even account for the bulk of the decline. Click for images. Although it is true, that the declining participation rate was already heading down it is also true that the pace of those declines have only steepened since B.O took office. It is also true, that despite the claims that the retiring of the baby boomers has contributed, fact is those between the ages of 16-54 have been leaving the workforce at the essentially the same rate as the "retiring baby boomers". Bottom line, there are structural issues with the baby boomers, but the weak economy is also a huge contributing factor.
Dorkington Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 No, this is because Barack is a socialist. "The number of people receiving food stamps dropped by more than 600,000 since our last report. But as of March, the most recent month on record, more than 45.6 million Americans were still receiving the food aid, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. That’s only 4.5 percentage points lower than the record level set in December 2012, and nearly 43 percent higher than it was when Obama took office in 2009. Nevertheless, Obama no longer qualifies for the title of “Food Stamp President” that Republican Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, tried to hang on him during the 2012 presidential campaign. As we noted at the time, 14.7 million people were added to the food-stamp rolls during George W. Bush’s time in office. By comparison, the net gain under Obama now stands at 13.7 million — and it’s declining as the economy improves." Interesting.
Magox Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 there's a surprise. the downward trend began in 2008 when the big banks and financial industry caused the economy to collapse. No it didn't ya twit, it began before that.
Dorkington Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 So basically... Republicans and Democrats can be blamed and given credit for both the good and the bad.
IDBillzFan Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) not being classicly trained, you probably didn't know to check the sources. so here you go. a sampling: Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Total Nonfarm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Unemployment Rate, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Number Unemployed for 27 Weeks & Over, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey: Job Openings, Seasonally Adjusted” Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Private sector establishment births and deaths, seasonally adjusted.” 29 Apr 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers.” Data extracted Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of All Employees, 1982-1984 Dollars.” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Weekly U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars per Gallon).” Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Data as of Dec 5, 2014).” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. U.S. Census Bureau. “Time Series: Seasonally Adjusted Home Ownership Rate.” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis. “Corporate Profits After Tax (without IVA and CCAdj) (CP).” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Google Finance. “S&P 500.” Historical prices. Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. Google Finance. “Dow Jones Industrial Average.” Historical prices. Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. Google Finance. “NASDAQ Composite.” Historical prices. Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. U.S. Treasury. “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It.” 3 Jul 2015. Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. Congressional Budget Office. “March 2015 Baseline” from “Updated Budget Projections: 2015 to 2025” 9 Mar 2015 when's the last time fox news published the sources for its stories? please tell me that if the numbers were as bad overall as they are actually good, you wouldn't blame obama for them. Jeez, could you possibly be more of a nutbag? I didn't question the facts. I questions the context of the facts. Are you trying to argue that the unemployment number is NOT down because almost 100M people are out of the workforce? Are you disputing a 45% jump in number of people on food stamps since Obama's presidency, bringing to over 4M the number of people getting federal food support? Or maybe you're just disputing that those are not real economic indicators and have no bearing on what people truly consider to be "good economic news"? Facts. So confusing to progressives, amirite? Edited July 28, 2015 by LABillzFan
birdog1960 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Jeez, could you possibly be more of a nutbag? I didn't question the facts. I questions the context of the facts. Are you trying to argue that the unemployment number is NOT down because almost 100M people are out of the workforce? Are you disputing a 45% jump in number of people on food stamps since Obama's presidency, bringing to over 4M the number of people getting federal food support? Or maybe you're just disputing that those are not real economic indicators and have no bearing on what people truly consider to be "good economic news"? Facts. So confusing to progressives, amirite? just wondering what you meant by this " "But hey...it's fact check.org, so it must be true." that seems inconsistent witrh this: "I didn't question the facts." geez, you stupid people are shameless as well.
Magox Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 just wondering what you meant by this " "But hey...it's fact check.org, so it must be true." that seems inconsistent witrh this: "I didn't question the facts." geez, you stupid people are shameless as well. No, you weak-minded fool. The whole point that we were talking about was CONTEXT!
B-Man Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 just wondering what you meant by this " "But hey...it's fact check.org, so it must be true." that seems inconsistent witrh this: "I didn't question the facts." geez, you stupid people are shameless as well. No FactCheck.org is NOT always correct.....................that has been discussed many times. The coincidence that they use the word facts in their name, doesn't follow that "I didn't question the facts" is wrong. .
IDBillzFan Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 just wondering what you meant by this " "But hey...it's fact check.org, so it must be true." that seems inconsistent witrh this: "I didn't question the facts." geez, you stupid people are shameless as well. I swear the more you post, the more I'm convinced you're gatorman because I can't believe that there are two people THIS stupid on this board.
Azalin Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I swear the more you post, the more I'm convinced you're gatorman because I can't believe that there are two people THIS stupid on this board. Gatorman hasn't read the classics. You can tell.
Alaska Darin Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 not being classicly trained, you probably didn't know to check the sources. so here you go. a sampling: Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Total Nonfarm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Unemployment Rate, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey; Number Unemployed for 27 Weeks & Over, Seasonally Adjusted.” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey: Job Openings, Seasonally Adjusted” Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Private sector establishment births and deaths, seasonally adjusted.” 29 Apr 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers.” Data extracted Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of All Employees, 1982-1984 Dollars.” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Weekly U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars per Gallon).” Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Data as of Dec 5, 2014).” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. U.S. Census Bureau. “Time Series: Seasonally Adjusted Home Ownership Rate.” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis. “Corporate Profits After Tax (without IVA and CCAdj) (CP).” Data extracted 2 Jul 2015. Google Finance. “S&P 500.” Historical prices. Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. Google Finance. “Dow Jones Industrial Average.” Historical prices. Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. Google Finance. “NASDAQ Composite.” Historical prices. Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. U.S. Treasury. “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It.” 3 Jul 2015. Data extracted 7 Jul 2015. Congressional Budget Office. “March 2015 Baseline” from “Updated Budget Projections: 2015 to 2025” 9 Mar 2015 when's the last time fox news published the sources for its stories? please tell me that if the numbers were as bad overall as they are actually good, you wouldn't blame obama for them. When confronted, make sure the majority of the links are from Government Propaganda websites. Sprinkle in links from thing that have almost no positive correlation (especially the evil stock market).
Magox Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I made mention of this earlier, but did you guys notice how FACTCHECK tried to provide context to why the worker participation rate was declining (an obvious attempted defense of the president) but provided NO context to the rosy at-face-value statistics that attempted to caste the president on an economic bright light?
birdog1960 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I swear the more you post, the more I'm convinced you're gatorman because I can't believe that there are two people THIS stupid on this board. that's ok. the more i read, the more i'm convinced all the righties here are actually a couple of unemployed teenagers living in their parents basement rereading "atlas shrugged" in between playing video games Edited July 28, 2015 by birdog1960
IDBillzFan Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) that's ok. the more i read, the more i'm convinced all the righties here are actually a couple of unemployed teenagers living in their parents basement rereading "atlas shrugged" in between playing video games Please. If it weren't for the "righties" most of America would be out of work. No one sits on their ass doing nothing like a progressive. No one. Who do you think comprises the 45% increase in food stamp recipients? Who do you think comprises the 100M people who stopped looking for work? The same people who put Barry in office for two years. Edited July 28, 2015 by LABillzFan
Alaska Darin Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 that's ok. the more i read, the more i'm convinced all the righties here are actually a couple of unemployed teenagers living in their parents basement rereading "atlas shrugged" in between playing video games Yet another example of your liberal hypocrisy. Everyone who disagrees with you is obviously undereducated and a lesser human being. You are such a !@#$ing pompous, blowhard, douchebag. Don't worry, I'm sure your ridiculous politics will save us from ourselves. THIS TIME FOR SURE!
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 that's ok. the more i read, the more i'm convinced all the righties here are actually a couple of unemployed teenagers living in their parents basement rereading "atlas shrugged" in between playing video games Most of the people here that you call "righties" aren't even righties.
B-Man Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 BERNIE SANDERS ON IMMIGRATION: “Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal. . . . It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that.” Plus: If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs. You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids? I think from a moral responsibility we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer. So it’s okay to have socialism, but it can’t be international socialism, it has to be socialism in one nation. A sort of national socialism, I guess.
LeviF Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 BERNIE SANDERS ON IMMIGRATION: “Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal. . . . It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that.” Plus: If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs. You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids? I think from a moral responsibility we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer. So it’s okay to have socialism, but it can’t be international socialism, it has to be socialism in one nation. A sort of national socialism, I guess. I'll give Bernie this: at least he's honest about it. Socialism only works in very specific contexts. It still won't work here, but he's really trying.
Recommended Posts