|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Obama administration continues to distribute|
Obama administration continues to distribute
Posted - 4/6/2013 10:43:08 AM | show profile | flag this post
dishonest employment statistics.
The labor force participation rate...which peaked early in the Bush years...is now at its lowest level since 1979. This means that 90 million Americans either cannot find work, have given up looking for work or are now on disability or other public assistance.
With a working-age population (15 to 64) of over 200 million, this means nearly half of them are not counted in the US labor force.
This skews employment statistics...Obama's claimed rate is 7.6 percent while the real figure is double...more like 14.7 percent. This presents a wholly dishonest view of the health of the US economy. But worse than that, it means that half the working-age population is supporting the entire country.
What's fair about that???
Posted - 4/6/2013 11:12:30 AM | show profile | flag this post
so tired & predictable
as usual, I can tell who started this thread before even
opening it. this guy is so tired, so predictable...yawn.
Posted - 4/6/2013 12:14:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
But why do you not
address the topic? The plain fact is...you can't unless you're willing to admit that the Obama administration is being dishonest. That would be antithetical to the left wing narrative.
Left wingers resort to ad hominem and personal attacks...as Village Gal did in this thread...to stay in discussions when they cannot participate honestly without contradicting their paradigm's talking points.
Posted - 4/6/2013 12:29:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
not interested.. just wanted to note how this is so tiresome
and BORING..not worth my time on a beautiful Saturday.
think what ever you want. Im going out into the sunshine.
Posted - 4/6/2013 12:30:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
It has been addressed time and again...
But you won't have anything to do with the fact that the economy crashed under Bush. It was great under Clinton, crashed under Bush and you expect Obama to clean up W's mess in just a few years. The fact is, the economy would be doing much better under Obama if the right wing Congress would get off their asses and try to pass something to help people get back to work. All they want to do is give the rich "job creators" more money so we will have more employment. So, where are the jobs? Corporate America is sitting on more cash than ever, and no new jobs. This falls on the Repubs, from the crashing of the economy to the delay in getting a strong recovery underway. You have nothing to point a finger at except yourself.
Posted - 4/6/2013 1:12:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
Good call, VG -- enjoy a gorgeous Saturday!
Posted - 4/6/2013 1:40:24 PM | show profile | flag this post
"the economy crashed under Bush"
That's a simplistic...and largely dishonest...analysis.
The crash was facilitated by Jimmy Carter's signing of the Community Reinvestment Act and Bill Clinton's repeal* of the Glass Steagall Act...and precipitated by Democrat/left wing pressure on lenders to issue mortgage loans that had no hope of ever being repaid (due to the relaxation of collateral and minimum earnings requirements, etc.). It was coincidence that the "perfect storm" occurred during the last year of Bush's presidency. It would have happened in roughly the same time frame regardless of who occupied the White House.
* While the actual repeal legislation was authored by Republicans, it was evangelized and heavily lobbied by Clinton's treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, who was a Wall Street insider "taking care" of his colleagues in the financial sector.
Posted - 4/6/2013 2:13:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
The economy crashed under CARTER?!
it was the gnomes of zurich in cahoots with Nixon and the trilateral commission that took the US of A off the gold standard!
And them commies back in 30s that rounded up the youngsters off the farms into New Deal militias and turned the economy into urban industrialized manufacturing facism!
it was that goddamned Coolage, dagnabbit! And the infernal cotton gin!
Why everybody knows except for them Li'bril extremists that it taint BUSH"S FAULT!!!!! .It all goes back to King George's tAXATION and the Patriots who defended capitalism!
Posted - 4/6/2013 5:16:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm not an economist;
But even I know the numbers are no cause for celebration. Retail employment fell by 24,000, and the postal service also cut about 12,000 jobs. And, The economy added a paltry 88,000 jobs in March.
I can do simple Math though. 88,000>0
And the Obama Admin has added about 4 million jobs. WAY WAY>larger than the last six months of the Bush administration, the U.S. lost 3.5 million jobs, including 760,000 jobs during January 2009 alone. (Politifact)
Much much more work to do. But gaining is beter than losing. Duh.
And the incredbily stupid line of logic that continues to blame our current economic troubles NOT on Obama, or even Dubya, but FOUR presidents ago--That never ceases to amaze. Sixteen years of Republican Presidents failed to see a looming disaster--or they did, and chose to do nothing. That's your story and yer sticking with it.
If that fairy tale were true, why hasn't Obama been blaming Reagan for all our econminc ails?? Seems to be the perfect out. Holy Crap on a Cracker.
Posted - 4/6/2013 5:58:48 PM | show profile | flag this post
I know it contradicts the left wing narrative
(and you and the others on here try to avoid that at all costs) but the FACTS of the 2008 mortgage crash are exactly as I described. Do the research.
Posted - 4/6/2013 6:30:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
There. I did the research.
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 Dems controlled both H&S
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 Dems controlled House 4 sess
Rep controlled Sen 3 out 4
George Bush Sr 1989-1983 Dem controlled both H&S
Bill Clinton 1983-2001 Dem controlled House once
Rep controlled House 3 times
Dem controlled Senate once
Rep controlled House 3 times
George W. Bush 2001-2009 Dem controlled house once
Rep controlled House 3 times
Dem/Rep twied twice in Senate
Rep controlled Senate twice.
So looking at all that--for ANYONE to still maintain that somehow Hogwarts Graduate Jimmy Carter was responsible for the the Great Bush Recession is beyond the pale of comprehension. Beyond blind ignorance and stupidity. All those Republican Administrations and Congress' just let it all slip thru their fingers and it all ended up on poor Dubya's doorstep.
Really now?? Sticking with that??
Posted - 4/6/2013 8:03:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yeah, I'm sticking with that
If you were HONEST you would too. But you're not.
You consistently refuse to accurately construct the timeline that led up to the crash and consider the ENTIRE set of circumstances OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME that precipitated it.
And it's plain as day...you're NOT an economist. Thank you for that fleeting glimpse of candor.
Posted - 4/6/2013 8:52:05 PM | show profile | flag this post
You aren't an economist, either. So what?
Posted - 4/6/2013 11:14:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, and that was not research
It was cherry-picking factoids that tended to support your deliberately or stupidly incomplete understanding of the mortgage crash and its drivers.
Posted - 4/6/2013 11:42:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
I was pointing out (AGAIN) that in-between your Villian/your bogey man, of all of this (Carter), and that innocent victim George W.....there were TWENTY years of Republican presidents and Republican Congresses in there. Not to mention Clinton.
You sill maintain that Dubya--and all those people--were either so totally clueless, or totally incompetant, that NO ONE could have foreseen or stopped the snowball of a disaster headed our way.
Nope. It was just Carter and a handful of legislators (You've even blamed the whole economic meltdown of 2009 on OBAMA while he was still a Senator.) That's a neat trick.
Only you cruise would consider listing Presidents and Congresses as "cherry-picking factoids". Un-friggin believable.
(Lemme guess; what's next? There were no wars and no debt and no deficit before Obama too. All those WH occupants before him were nothing more than "factoids")
Posted - 4/7/2013 2:02:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
Sadly, dogson's is an entirely predictable
ego defense exercise.
He just doesn't want to hear it so he's got his fingers in his ears, his eyes shut tight and he's humming at the top of his voice so he can neither see nor hear the truth.
Anyone who so dishonestly cherry picks, exaggerates, distorts and flat lies is pitiable for his dogged cleavage to a false paradigm.
Posted - 4/7/2013 9:07:08 AM | show profile | flag this post
Again, you're comparing apples and oranges, cruzo...
Sure, the U6 unemployment rate was 13.8% for March.
But that's actually LOWER than the U6 rate Bush left the country with -- at nearly 15%.
What you're trying to do is compare Obama's U6 numbers with Bush's U3 numbers.
Posted - 4/7/2013 10:57:44 AM | show profile | flag this post
No, what I'm doing is
simply reporting Obama's labor force participation numbers and backing that up with his...Obama's...U6 numbers. I'm not comparing him to anyone.
And you cannot...CANNOT...honestly blame the 2008 unemployment numbers solely on Bush. I've explained why but you refuse to "get it." You're defending your own ego and trying to alibi your party...just like dogson.
Posted - 4/7/2013 1:57:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** .just like dogson. ***
The guy can't even get names right. And he demands to be accepted as credible with cherry-picked statistics?
Posted - 4/7/2013 2:39:06 PM | show profile | flag this post
wait a minute... predictable is my word for cruiser. if he
is going to use that, then I may have to start using egregious.
Posted - 4/7/2013 3:12:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
I guess anything
that contradicts the far left wing view of the world is derided as "cherry picked." That way they can convince themselves they don't require any self-examination.
Posted - 4/7/2013 3:18:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
The (lack of) Logic is Mind-Boggling.
1) "Obama's labor force participation numbers"...." Obama's claimed rate is 7.6" etc etc. Okay, first, the BLS does not work for Obama. But THEY ARE Obama's numbers, clearly. And when the BLS publishes bad numbers--they're accurate--when they publish good numbers--someone must be cooking the books.
2) "And you cannot...CANNOT...honestly blame the 2008 unemployment numbers solely on Bush" See? Obama's numbers (since he's president--he owns those--Bush, while president--didn't own them) Must be the other guys fault.
3) The whole economic disasters of 2009 (While Bush was president) wasn't Bush's fault--because he may have been president--but he didn't own it--because that started decades ago after two Dem and two Repub presidents--we just couldn't do anything.
4) Our economic problems now however, are Obama's fault because he owns it, despite twenty years of Repub presidents and Congresses, but heh, he's just the president, so not his fault apparently--but definitely his fault because he's Obama.
"I've explained why but you refuse to "get it." God help the next guy who tries to put together one of your 'extensive years of freelance writing research birdhouses kits'.
Posted - 4/7/2013 4:05:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
Not worth a response
Everyone on here can plainly see that he's just flailing with irrelevant, unconnected, out-of-context snippets in a vain attempt to deride what I posted.
He...like other left wingers...just refuses to accept the truth of Obama's failures.
Posted - 4/7/2013 4:20:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
mp, when you're getting ready to reply to him, remember this: You can't fix stupid no matter how hard you try.
Posted - 4/8/2013 9:37:28 AM | show profile | flag this post
So cruzo says...
"And you cannot...CANNOT...honestly blame the 2008 unemployment numbers solely on Bush."
And YOU, cruzo, cannot...CANNOT...honestly blame the 2009-2013 numbers solely on Obama.
Obama inherited a mismanaged government of massive spending, slashed revenues, and nearly zero government regulation of the banking and finance sector amid the worst recession since the great depression.
He came into office with a Republican leadership which made it clear their #1 priority was not fixing the economy or job creation -- but "defeating Obama."
Since late last year alone, the GOP has pushed for higher payroll taxes (Obama wanted a one year extension on the payroll tax holiday) and the GOP has pushed for sequestration. Both of these elements are being blamed for the March slowdown in job growth.
I hope you, cruzo, "get it."