Re: Obama to business owners: "You didn't build that."
No, you are trying to say that labor participation rates aren't important, and that the size of labor force is all that matters. Answer this smart guy, if the labor force is larger, but the participation rate is lower, what does that mean? It means there are fewer jobs available than there were 3 years ago. I thought that was understood, but apparantly you aren't smart enough to understand the point that was being made.
Let me be a little more clear for you, since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the implied points being made. There are FEWER people WORKING today than there were 3 years ago. Also, there are FEWER available jobs today than there were 3 years ago.
Capiche?
Under Obama, there has been NET LOSS of jobs in America. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. 7 million people have abandoned the labor market. Underemployment is above 13%. Real unemployment is about 11.5%. The government doesn't even factor in the people who have given up looking for work, or who have exceeded 99 weeks of unemployment. This man-child President is a disaster, and everyone knows it. Which is why he would rather talk about Ryan's budget plans, instead of his own failed record.
Capiche?
Enough with the personal attacks - they really don't work when the attacker is wrong on the basic facts.
The low point for employment in the US was in late July, early August 2009 -
3 years ago - since that low point there has been a continual increase in the number of Americans working - despite the fact that during the same three years the number of people with government jobs has decreased, with the exception of the temporary increase for the period of the 2010 Census.
The FACT that you bring up must use the January 2009 numbers, a period during which American job numbers were plummeting and during which the newly elected President had zero effect on the economy.
Time and again the increase in employment graph has been posted, and yes it did look like a bikini for the period 2007 -2011.
A more correct statement would be "
During the Obama Administration, there has been a net loss of jobs in America" What's the difference? The President and his staff and his Cabinet do not control the economy, they can for the most part only make suggestions and attempt to push thru legislation they favour but it is the Congress that must pass those bills.
When you have a Congress setting records in obstructionism, it is difficult to get anything done. Naturally, the instigators of the obstruction, the members of the Party of NO! place all of the blame upon the President. I can blame the President too but I blame him for not realising the depth of hatred and antipathy that is present in the modern Republican Party, I can blame him for using the "bully pulpit" to better inform the electorate of the deliberate actions of a party which are causing much of today's financial woes.
It is almost 170 years since the American government has witnessed such an obstinate refusal to compromise and for one of the major parties to refuse to work with the other for the benefit of the nation. The result was not pretty then and it may not be 'pretty' in our near future.