Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ah yes, as I was saying...
The employment/population ratio was at or below the current number of 58.2
from December of 1981 through August of 1983.
That would be for almost half of Ronald Reagan's first term.
Now you know why the OP's propaganda piece only went back 25 years.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Employment..Obama's 30 worst in 25 years..
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
Barack Obama
Ah yes, as I was saying...
The employment/population ratio was at or below the current number of 58.2
from December of 1981 through August of 1983.
That would be for almost half of Ronald Reagan's first term.
Now you know why the OP's propaganda piece only went back 25 years.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Employment..Obama's 30 worst in 25 years..
Obama is an over-achiever. But remember this:
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
Barack Obama
Change is good, even if it's bad! War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Ah yes, as I was saying...
The employment/population ratio was at or below the current number of 58.2
from December of 1981 through August of 1983.
That would be for almost half of Ronald Reagan's first term.
Now you know why the OP's propaganda piece only went back 25 years.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
I just posted the article as found, it's up to you to propagandize and make excuses...
If you take into account that Carter was the president before Reagan it does make sense..
and, just a comment here.. y'all having to go back over 25 years to make Obama look good is at least humorous if not pathetic, a what?
Ah yes, as I was saying...
The employment/population ratio was at or below the current number of 58.2
from December of 1981 through August of 1983.
That would be for almost half of Ronald Reagan's first term.
Now you know why the OP's propaganda piece only went back 25 years.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
I just posted the article as found, it's up to you to propagandize and make excuses...
If you take into account that Carter was the president before Reagan it does make sense..
and, just a comment here.. y'all having to go back over 25 years to make Obama look good is at least humorous if not pathetic, a what?
No, I just had to go back to the one and only president that conservatives unreservedly revere and inevitably reference when the conversation turns to the economy and presidents.
Your thread only serves to remind us that in reality President Obama is not doing any worse than Ronald Reagan did.
Since 1961...
Republican job growth - 24 million jobs in 28 years.
Democrats - 42 million jobs in 24 years.
We have just had the fastest drop in unemployment since 1984....from 10.2% to 8.1%. All this in spite of the fact that House Republicans have blocked infrastructure spending bills that would have helped. Why? Because Republicans are more concerned with winning the election than helping America.
We have just had the fastest drop in unemployment since 1984....from 10.2% to 8.1%. All this in spite of the fact that House Republicans have blocked infrastructure spending bills that would have helped. Why? Because Republicans are more concerned with winning the election than helping America.
When over 300,000 workers get discouraged the unemployment rate drops. That's not a successful economic result.
We have just had the fastest drop in unemployment since 1984....from 10.2% to 8.1%. All this in spite of the fact that House Republicans have blocked infrastructure spending bills that would have helped. Why? Because Republicans are more concerned with winning the election than helping America.
When over 300,000 workers get discouraged the unemployment rate drops. That's not a successful economic result.
Discouraged workers went down by about 8,000 (no, not statistically significant). The number of 16-24 year olds Not in the Labor Force went up by 1.6 million, and all of those were saying they did not want a job.
The drop in Labor Force Participation is definitely bad, but it's not due to discouragement.
