historically 5% has been called full employment
If you were at all familiar with the literature, you'd know that for many years the rate was more like four to five, and for those economists on the Left, a lot would even point to three. Some people, especially those on the Right, confuse what the Fed calls the "long-run normal level" with full employment. We've now achieved the former, but the latter is of course a lower number — not being in a recession doesn't mean we're at full employment.
I'd say the easy way to define that level is a labor market in which everyone who wants a job is able to find one and also get the hours they want as well. You and yer uninformed RW pals love to complain about the remaining weakness — more than five million working part-time for economic reasons, and nearly six million who say they want a job but aren't looking. Conditions have improved dramatically, but there's still room for more progress.
>>i will stick to the violation of immigration laws being ignored as a violation of the law
Ignored? Handing undocumented jaywalkers over to the Feds for deportation is not a responsibility of a municipal gubmint.
>>No, I have turned over a new leaf and have become a liberal. yes, driver's licenses are proof of citizenship and used for voter registration.
Yer so freaking ignorant of the issues involved in all this that you think a driver's license is proof of citizenship and/or voter registration, and when yer error is pointed out you return to yer new-found childish sarcasm. A Frump clown for sure.
>>taxes weren't reduced nor cut under Obama. A rebate is not a tax cut
Yer usual worthless sophistry.
>>Yep, and people without jobs took advantage of that didn't they
Yeah, a bunch of 'em did.
>>I thought the stimulus was supposed to prevent that from happening.
What you "think" should be flushed down the toilet.
>>I would have thought that brilliant liberal economic plan would have done much better two years later.
The damage done by policies you continue to support pushed us close to a worldwide depression. Takes a few years to recover from something like that, especially when the GOP leadership in Congress allows itself to be controlled by the nutty Eff Up caucus.
>>my New Year's resolution is to be more like you and other liberals
And you'll fail in that effort as well.
>>what was the purpose of the stimulus that was signed February 17, 2009?
Avoid a worldwide depression. Mission accomplished.
>>Obama … added 10 trillion
A stupid lie, as I and others has shown here repeatedly.
>>your chart showed 3.5 million
No, that's 3.5%. I already went out of my way to explain that graph to you. Yer not just ignorant, yer
stubbornly ignorant.
>>being down from 9 isn't much of a success.
It's a drop of 38%, as I noted. Yer view of "success" isn't worth even considering.
>>Let me know when Bush had 9 million discouraged?
Discouraged? That's not the measure being discussed. There were 9.1 million working PT for economic reasons in Mar 2009 — a bad situation handed to the Negro by his well-intentioned but misguided predecessor.
>>Interesting how you and a couple other posters got it right and the electorate was so wrong
How'd Obummer do in 2008 and 2012? Did the German electorate "get it right" in that country's 1932 national parliamentary contests?
After the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented tax revenue went from 2.2 trillion to 2.7 trillion
Another stupid lie you keep repeating, shown to be total BS by myself and others here.
>>the EC not popular vote which doesn't allow the big population centers to interject their will on the total country.
As one would expect, you and yer moronic reactionary pals don't understand this either. "Big population centers" isn't the issue, it's disproportionate congressional representation given to states like WY, ID, AK, MN, ND, SD, NE, and KS. Those eight have a combined population of about 7.6 million, just 2.4% of the national total, and yet they have twenty-four electoral votes, 4.5% of the 538 total.
Why should some very sparsely populated Plains states have nearly twice as much say in federal outcomes? I can't see why a Senator from WY should represent 300K residents while one from CA is there for twenty million. I live in a very small state (RI) and we've put some very good people into the Senate over the years, but I won't place self-interest above justice. Yer not affected by that limitation.
