This is my last post to you as well as I am tired of liberals reporting my posts when they cannot refute the challenges from verifiable sites. the only way a liberal wins is to get me booted and what does that really accomplish?
I've already provided multiple instances of information from that source. I don't believe you gave credit to any of it. I don't see the point in constantly posting the same accurate information over and over again if it's just going to be ignored.Suggest you go to BLS.gov
You can repeat this all you want, but the drop in the labor force has already been explained in this thread (I think it was this thread, at least).check the labor force.
Okay.This is my last post to you as well
Your challenges have been met at every turn. You have not asked a single question of me that I have not answered, and in many cases, used statistics to defeat. Just because you don't agree with the answers, you cannot claim they were not answered.as I am tired of liberals reporting my posts when they cannot refute the challenges from verifiable sites.
But either way, Obama lowered the unemployment rate more than Reagan, after 51 months in office. In fact, he lowered it more than EVERY Republican president according to BLS numbers:
Clinton -2.2 -30% Johnson -1.9 -33% Kennedy** -1.2 -14% Obama -0.3 -4% Reagan -0.2 -3% Carter*** 0.0 0% Bush +1.0 +24% Eisenhower +1.0 +34% Nixon +1.6 +47% GHW Bush*** +1.9 +35% Ford* +2.0 +36%
* = in office 29 months
** = in office 34 months
*** = in office 48 months
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
High school student looks for a first summer job, can't find one after a couple of weeks, gives up because he doesn't think he'll find one.
Housewife wants part time job, job but can't find one with suitable hours.
Retiree wants post-retirement job, stops looking when all jobs want someone younger.
Person fired who looks but gives up because they think they'll face discrimination.
Person quits, looks for new job and gives up because they think they don't have the right skills.
Last edited by pinqy; 05-05-13 at 09:46 PM.
Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.
Moderator's Warning: The name of the site is Debate Politics, not Debate Moderation. Any issues you have with moderation should be addressed through PM. Once again please stay on topic.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.