Dpetty
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 160
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
How they live is the key difference
The key difference to what?? I dont understand where you are going with this...
How they live is the key difference
That would be because Republican Presidents understand basic economics, unlike Obama, who is nothing more than radical ideologue/community organizer who has never even run a cash register at 7/11.
GHW Bush | +2.0 | +37% |
Ford** | +2.0 | +36% |
Nixon | +1.6 | +56% |
Eisenhower | +1.5 | +52% |
Bush | +1.2 | +29% |
Carter | 0.0 | 0% |
Obama | -0.1 | -1% |
Reagan | -0.3 | -4% |
Kennedy* | -1.2 | -14% |
Clinton | -1.9 | -26% |
Johnson | -1.9 | -33% |
Bush's Economy for most of his 2 terms was a robust, strong, and growing economy, with unemployment as low as 4.5%
Bush disagrees with you. He says it's the fault of his and Republican policies...The Housing Crash happened because of Clinton's over-regulation and Greenspan's idiotic monetary policy.
The key difference to what?? I dont understand where you are going with this...
It's unbelievable that anyone would even attempt such an incredible feat.Stop it, you're calling Bush's economy robust?
First, quote where I said "they are all retirees" ...OK, so you want to say that they are all retirees....Show me that in black and white then, and not just your own partisan wish to make your own argument work....
The money would be less for a longer Reid of time. It isn't like they'd have as much as working. People still work. Most work.
They must be so baffled at how they coudn't convince enough voters of their economic views that they couldn't defeat Obama. :shrug:This has gotten so tiresomely typical. Right-wingers just drag out the same old dead arguments in any month that the BLS numbers are positive. Knee-jerk trained-sealism.
This has gotten so tiresomely typical. Right-wingers just drag out the same old dead arguments in any month that the BLS numbers are positive. Knee-jerk trained-sealism.
The labor force particpation rate is principally driven by two factors -- a demographic component and a cyclical component. Beginning in the late 1960's and picking up steam through the 1970's, the demographic component drove the LFPR as -- thanks to the pill and to Roe -- women demanded and got an education and then demanded and got jobs. And not just jobs in the steno pool. That trend of more and more women working was projected to peak in the late 1990's, but the economy was so strong then (remember?) that the cyclical component pushed the actual peak back by a couple of years. Things have changed since then. The demographic arrow is now pushing the LFPR downward due to the increasing rate of baby boomer retirements. The cyclical arrow had tilted downward in 2001-2003, and was of course jerked sharply in that direction in 2007-2008. It would be news if the LFPR were doing anything but declining.
The labor force, however, is a different thing. Where then LFPR is a long-term trend, the labor force is a bouncy thing in the short-term. In the eleven months of data so far in 2012, the labor force has increased six times and decreased five times. The absolute value of the average monthly change has been about 375,000. The range has been between -368K and +642K. There is not an consistent argument to be made form these data, but the right wing will pretend that there is -- in certain selected months. This is because their handlers are inveterate liars and they themselves don't seem to know better.
First, quote where I said "they are all retirees" ...
Another way to look at it is that after inheriting an unemployment rate of 4.2% in January 2001, by March of 2002, Bush had us on federal emergency long-term UI benefits, and we stayed there for the rest of 2002 and all of 2003. What a miracle worker!Under 8 years of Bush, an astounding 11.4 million people became un/under employed.
See bolded part - no, there isn't, as long as the states agree to those programs. We don't need the feds to provide any but the services enumerated to the fed's control by the Constitution. They can all be provided by the states as they wish. The feds should only act as a coordinator in this scenerio.
But we've screwed that system and gone way extra-constitutional. So with the system the way it is, the way we've allowed it to morph, we have become dependent upon federal services. Setting up a vicious cycle.
Yes, it seems to be weighing rather heavily on a quite number of them. They were so stoked and invested in the dream of seeing Romney fulfill the prophecy of making Obama a one-term President. Like Romney, they never wrote a concession speech. Now they have to wing it and are not doing a terribly good job of it...They must be so baffled at how they coudn't convince enough voters of their economic views that they couldn't defeat Obama.:shrug:
The data speak, but not to you, I see. At least judging from this one entirely hapless response. A significant nuimber of the arguments proposed in this thread and elsewhere by our right-wing friends have been total frauds. The same total frauds they trotted out last time the employment numbers looked good. It's become nothing but a mindless ritual.What is tiresome, is when people constantly make their arguments, based on party affiliation. I.E. Anything republicans do is garbage, and anything the Democrats do is pure gold! Anyone who cant admit that there are things done in both parties that are good and bad, is simply a hypocrite. Cardinal being foremost among them.
WTF???I bolded what you said, so do us both a favor, and instead of this semantic diversion, just answer the question, K? Yeah, thanks.
The data speak, but not to you, I see. At least judging from this one entirely hapless response. A significant nuimber of the arguments proposed in this thread and elsewhere by our right-wing friends have been total frauds. The same total frauds they trotted out last time the employment numbers looked good. It's become nothing but a mindless ritual.
WTF???
I said, "But to that, I largely attribute retiring baby boomers."
But your brain translates that into, "so you want to say that they are all retirees."
:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
How can I answer a question based on a false premise? That false premise being something I never said.
At any rate, according to this study, just under half of the drop in the labor force participation rate is due to retiring baby boomers. And the rate of baby boomers reaching retirement age increases every single day, leading to even more people retiring.
There are an additional 1.5 million people between ages 62 and 66 every single month. That has a huge impact on the labor force.
http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cflmarch2012_296.pdf
I don't suppose you'd mind backing that up with "factual" data??You realize that the data you refer to shows that Reagan left office with an unemployment rate of 4% right? Using stimulus spending no less...
Holy ****, mac!!!Then explain to me if that is the case, why it is that the employment numbers aren't equally as large? I mean, if 1.5 million per month are leaving, and only 150,000 being hired, where's the other jobs going?
Actually, it was 5.4%, but that was more than 20 years ago. What would that have to do with the price of eggs?You realize that the data you refer to shows that Reagan left office with an unemployment rate of 4% right? Using stimulus spending no less...
That was a constitutional amendment, which is ratified by the states.
Yes, they did. A minimum age of 16 for inclusion in the labor force was introduced in 1967. Prior to that it had been 14. The data were concurrently adjusted back through 1947. The change was made to establish concurrence with state school attendance and work-permit laws.Oh, and by the way ... back then, they didn't include 16-24 year olds in the U3 unemployment rate. Had they, that 5.4% would have been higher.
Holy ****, mac!!!
First I say, "But to that, I largely attribute retiring baby boomers," but somehow, your brain translates that into, "so you want to say that they are all retirees."
Now I say, "There are an additional 1.5 million people between ages 62 and 66 every single month," and somehow your brain translates that into, "I mean, if 1.5 million per month are leaving"
I'm sorry, but until you learn to properly read what people write, I can't continue answering questions that are not grounded to reality.
I don't suppose you'd mind backing that up with "factual" data??
No, of course not.
January, 1989: U3=5.4%
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Oh, and by the way ... back then, they didn't include 16-24 year olds in the U3 unemployment rate. Had they, that 5.4% would have been higher.
Actually, it was 5.4%, but that was more than 20 years ago. What would that have to do with the price of eggs?
Bush inherited from his predecessor one of the healthiest economies of any incoming President in our history, and he passed on to his successor one of the sickest. The Bush-43 administration was an economic disaster. Unfortunately, there were others as well.