• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There are 100 million people out of work in the US

reason10 said:
I gave sources and charts too. The difference is my sources are reliable. Yours aren't.
Click to expand...

Your sources cite my sources as their source AND none of your sources claim there are 100 million able bodied working age who want to work. Why are your sources more reliable than the actual data????
 
reason10 said:
That's all ANY of us are doing. That's all ANY poll, ANY government survey, etc is doing. It's ALL based on sampling. I just happen to have more accurate sampling than the standard liberal cretin who is stupid enough to believe KOS or Huffington.[/quot] You haven't revealed this sampling or survey. All your sources cite BLS.


[quoet]Your opinion only.
Click to expand...
No, it's not my opinon: Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted 24.4 million with a disability not in the labor force. 24.4/95 is higher than 5%



Prove that number. Produce the statements from EACH person.
Click to expand...
Results of the sample. Show your proof that ALL of them want a job.

. And I HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ON MY SIDE.
Click to expand...
You have not showed one actual number or source that says that there are 100 million people who are able bodied, working age, and want to work.
 
reason10 said:
Suggesting the WORST ECONOMY AND WORST UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF AMERICA is not fear mongering. It's called REPORTING THE FACTS.
Click to expand...

According to the data there are 94,718,000 people neither working nor trying to work (out of 300 mil). Of those 89,134,000 do not want a job, while only 5,584,000 say they want to work but were not available at the time (3,132,000 not looked for a job and 2,452,000 who looked for a job).

So basically, the majority of 100 million do not want a job. There, you have facts reported.
 
imagep said:
The OP claimed in a response to one of my posts that that 100 million people "want" jobs. So I guess they aren't slackers at all, they must all be actively looking for jobs. Seems that someone like Mit Romney could at least get a job at McDonalds as a fry cook.
Click to expand...

Oh, he will, just as soon as Obama is out of the WhiteHouse.

Come to think of it, Romney would have a job now if it weren't for Obama. Darned job killing president!
 
No, it's not my opinon: Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted 24.4 million with a disability not in the labor force. 24.4/95 is higher than 5%
Click to expand...

The Barak Obama opinion. Yeah, right.



Results of the sample. Show your proof that ALL of them want a job.

You have not showed one actual number or source that says that there are 100 million people who are able bodied, working age, and want to work.
Click to expand...

You haven't showed ONE actual number to suggest they DON'T.

I've already admitted there are some lazy asses who don't want to work. I've compromised. And I suggest that we cut those moochers off. I'll bet they'll develop a strong work ethic when faced with cable being cut off and their weekly ration of crack cocaine being gone.
 
Come to think of it, Romney would have a job now if it weren't for Obama. Darned job killing president!
Click to expand...

Romney could have won the presidency in a landslide if he hadn't been such a LIBERAL. Obama won by fewer votes than in 08, so you can't blame him.
 
reason10 said:
The Barak Obama opinion. Yeah, right.
Click to expand...
Obama has nothing to do with the numbers. No one in his adminsitration has any access to the data until the report is completed. But go ahead, present your data contradicting mine.





You haven't showed ONE actual number to suggest they DON'T.
Click to expand...
I've presented multiple data sets.....24 million disabled, 25 million 65 and older not disabled, 89 million who way they don't want to work. Where's your data?

I've already admitted there are some lazy asses who don't want to work. I've compromised.
Click to expand...
How does one compromise with facts? Either your initial claim was true or not true. Present any reliable source that supports any of your claims...and no "I'm sure Trump has some seekrit special source we don't know about that is bigger and more reliable than an agency that's done it for 70 years" is not a relaible source.
 
reason10 said:
Romney could have won the presidency in a landslide if he hadn't been such a LIBERAL. Obama won by fewer votes than in 08, so you can't blame him.
Click to expand...

Romney a liberal?

I don't think you're ever gong to get a president as "conservatives" as you'd like.

It is Obama's fault that Romney doesn't have a job, isn't it? Think about it.
 
reason10 said:
100 Million Americans Out of Work: Media Praises Unemployment Dropping to Lowest Since 2008
Click to expand...
To add to the corrections already posted:

Labor force participation rate started dropping in 2001.

fredgraph.png


What happened was: In the 1950s, women started joining the workforce, while men started leaving the workforce. In 2001, men continued to leave, while women started to leave as well.

fredgraph.png


This is most likely due to a mixture of factors, such as Boomers just starting to retire, people spending more time as full-time students, and people opting to take care of someone (child, aging parent, disabled partner) as the cost of said care outstripped wages. It will likely continue to drop, as Boomers slowly leave the workforce.

The recession slightly accelerated the drop in LFPR, but not much. It should be screamingly obvious that the culprit was the recession, which has many causes, and cannot be effectively blamed on any single individual, political party, or financial entity.

At any rate, it should be screamingly obvious that changes in LFPR are decades-long changes, which probably doesn't have much to do with any elected official's specific policies.
 
reason10 said:
Romney could have won the presidency in a landslide if he hadn't been such a LIBERAL. Obama won by fewer votes than in 08, so you can't blame him.
Click to expand...

The only thing that kept him out of the White House was his 47% remarks. Almost everyone at some time in their lives are in the 47%, you can't offend everyone, and still be elected.
 
The only thing that kept him out of the White House was his 47% remarks.
Click to expand...
Total bull****.

The thing that kept him out of the White House is the fact that he was a LIBERAL. And that pissed off most of the country who sat him. The 47% remark was the FIRST honest thing he ever said. Had he been a Donald Trump and not backed down for it, most of the country wouldn't have sat home. He would have been elected in a landslide.

He was a *****. Most of America won't vote for a *****.

If THE DONALD is nominated, he is going to say things about Hillary that make the 47% remark look like the Lord's Prayer by comparison.
 
reason10 said:
Total bull****.

The thing that kept him out of the White House is the fact that he was a LIBERAL. And that pissed off most of the country who sat him. The 47% remark was the FIRST honest thing he ever said. Had he been a Donald Trump and not backed down for it, most of the country wouldn't have sat home. He would have been elected in a landslide.

He was a *****. Most of America won't vote for a *****.

If THE DONALD is nominated, he is going to say things about Hillary that make the 47% remark look like the Lord's Prayer by comparison.
Click to expand...

Right, right, Romney was too liberal, so the voters chose Obama instead. Now, that makes about as much sense as the opening post.
 
Get back to work, old people!!
 
Dittohead not! said:
Right, right, Romney was too liberal, so the voters chose Obama instead. Now, that makes about as much sense as the opening post.
Click to expand...

Try to follow me here. (I don't know how simpler I could have made this.)

Obama's support was fading. He won in 08 because of his color, and ONLY because of his color. By 2010 his polices had so fcked the economy that his party lost the House. He won 2012 by FEWER votes. That means there were FEWER dumbfcks out there willing to vote for the KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY.

Romney had it made. All he had to do was sell the GOP base, (which makes up the majority of America) and he could have kicked that idiot to the curb. But he wanted to be an independent. And he WON the independents. All 100 of them.

The conservative base (which makes up most of America) stayed home.
 
reason10 said:
Total bull****.

The thing that kept him out of the White House is the fact that he was a LIBERAL. And that pissed off most of the country who sat him. The 47% remark was the FIRST honest thing he ever said. Had he been a Donald Trump and not backed down for it, most of the country wouldn't have sat home. He would have been elected in a landslide.

He was a *****. Most of America won't vote for a *****.

If THE DONALD is nominated, he is going to say things about Hillary that make the 47% remark look like the Lord's Prayer by comparison.
Click to expand...

You think deployed combat troops and seniors who worked their whole life and are now retired "can't be convinced to take care of themselves?"
 
reason10 said:
Try to follow me here. (I don't know how simpler I could have made this.)

Obama's support was fading. He won in 08 because of his color, and ONLY because of his color. By 2010 his polices had so fcked the economy that his party lost the House. He won 2012 by FEWER votes. That means there were FEWER dumbfcks out there willing to vote for the KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY.

Romney had it made. All he had to do was sell the GOP base, (which makes up the majority of America) and he could have kicked that idiot to the curb. But he wanted to be an independent. And he WON the independents. All 100 of them.

The conservative base (which makes up most of America) stayed home.
Click to expand...

By 2008 the economy was already ****ed, kiddo.
 
reason10 said:
... that he was a LIBERAL. ... The 47% remark was the FIRST honest thing he ever said....
Click to expand...

You don't see the contradiction here? If he was a liberal, then the 47% remark was a lie (to him), only if he was a radical conservative, would that have been the truth to him.

Also, the "base" never stays at home, they always vote for their team. That's why we call them the base. It's not the base of any party that wins or loses general elections, so pandering to them after being nominated is stupid.

The voters who decide elections are the swing voters and occasional voters - whoever can motivate them sufficently will be elected.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
The only thing that kept him out of the White House was his 47% remarks. Almost everyone at some time in their lives are in the 47%, you can't offend everyone, and still be elected.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. Telling people the truth is not a way to get elected. I think they should no longer be referred to as Commander in Chief but Liar in chief or maybe Politically Correct token Puppet in Chief. And with these new descriptions of what kind of leader we seem to want running our country Hillary and Trump are clearly qualified.
 
reason10 said:
If THE DONALD is nominated, he is going to say things about Hillary that make the 47% remark look like the Lord's Prayer by comparison.
Click to expand...

He already has.

Well, not about Hillary necessarily, but certainly more outrageous statements than Romney ever made.

Which is why he'll never win the general election.
 
He already has.
Click to expand...
He hasn't even come close to eviscerating Hillary. It's going to be like a slaughterhouse. And all he has to do is read her record.
Well, not about Hillary necessarily, but certainly more outrageous statements than Romney ever made.
Click to expand...

He has told the TRUTH more than Romney. And most of America didn't get behind Romney like they have behind Trump.
Which is why he'll never win the general election.
Click to expand...

Oh, he'll win it. America's not THAT fcking stupid, to elect the Hildebitch. And he's a million times more qualified than anyone else in the race.
 
reason10 said:
He hasn't even come close to eviscerating Hillary. It's going to be like a slaughterhouse. And all he has to do is read her record.


He has told the TRUTH more than Romney. And most of America didn't get behind Romney like they have behind Trump.


Oh, he'll win it. America's not THAT fcking stupid, to elect the Hildebitch. And he's a million times more qualified than anyone else in the race.
Click to expand...

He and his uncontrolled mouth will lose the election, even if he gets the nomination. When he does, the RWENJ crowd will blame illegals and welfare recipients who vote for Democrats to keep their government goodies.

You can count on it.
 
reason10 said:
He hasn't even come close to eviscerating Hillary. It's going to be like a slaughterhouse. And all he has to do is read her record.


He has told the TRUTH more than Romney. And most of America didn't get behind Romney like they have behind Trump.


Oh, he'll win it. America's not THAT fcking stupid, to elect the Hildebitch. And he's a million times more qualified than anyone else in the race.
Click to expand...

The president of our local NAACP chapter loves Trumph. She told me that he would be the best democrat that republicans would dare elect. I happen to thing she is correct. Glad you are on board with liberals like Trumph. to me, it's pretty much a tossup between Bernie and the Donald, I could vote for either.
 
You don't see the contradiction here? If he was a liberal, then the 47% remark was a lie (to him), only if he was a radical conservative, would that have been the truth to him.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible that he was lying about that 47 percent remark. It WAS THE TRUTH however, in all reality. It just means he was too stupid to do it out of reach of cameras.
Also, the "base" never stays at home, they always vote for their team.
Click to expand...
Maybe on the Democrat side you're right. The Democrat base would vote for a Pedophile.

The Republican base stayed home. That's the ONLY way the KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY COULD GET ANYWHERE NEAR A MAJORITY.
It's not the base of any party that wins or loses general elections, so pandering to them after being nominated is stupid.
Click to expand...

The GENIUS of Donald Trump is the fact that he has not deliberately pandered to anyone. PERIOD. He has just been himself and has been honest about where he wants to take the country. The conservative base (aka MOST OF AMERICA) prefer his method and his vision. That's why he's leading in all the polls and is EVEN LEADING HILLARY today.
The voters who decide elections are the swing voters and occasional voters - whoever can motivate them sufficently will be elected.
Click to expand...

Maybe on your backwards planet. Swing voters are nothing more than a colossal waste of money. They are preferred by the media because they really are the only drama in the race.
Bottom line, had McCain and Romney HAD the conservative base, the KENYAN VILLAGE IDIOT would be in the private sector right now.

Trump is going to have the base behind him. That's all he needs. He already has the majority of America NOW. If the election were held tomorrow he would be president. And he has yet to spend even $1000 for that lead.

When he starts truly campaigning, it's going to be Reagan/Mondale all over again.
 
reason10 said:
It's entirely possible that he was lying about that 47 percent remark. It WAS THE TRUTH however, in all reality. It just means he was too stupid to do it out of reach of cameras.

Maybe on the Democrat side you're right. The Democrat base would vote for a Pedophile.

The Republican base stayed home. That's the ONLY way the KENYAN SHOESHINE BOY COULD GET ANYWHERE NEAR A MAJORITY.


The GENIUS of Donald Trump is the fact that he has not deliberately pandered to anyone. PERIOD. He has just been himself and has been honest about where he wants to take the country. The conservative base (aka MOST OF AMERICA) prefer his method and his vision. That's why he's leading in all the polls and is EVEN LEADING HILLARY today.


Maybe on your backwards planet. Swing voters are nothing more than a colossal waste of money. They are preferred by the media because they really are the only drama in the race.
Bottom line, had McCain and Romney HAD the conservative base, the KENYAN VILLAGE IDIOT would be in the private sector right now.

Trump is going to have the base behind him. That's all he needs. He already has the majority of America NOW. If the election were held tomorrow he would be president. And he has yet to spend even $1000 for that lead.

When he starts truly campaigning, it's going to be Reagan/Mondale all over again.
Click to expand...

Elections are not decided by people who would vote for "their" party if they nominated a Beelzebub/Mephistopheles ticket.

Elections are decided by people who know the issues and vote for the best candidate.

And yes, the Republican base will vote the Beelzebub/Mephistopheles ticket, too, if that's what their favorite party nominates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom