Fox News Sunday Anchors Upset About Obama's Job Growth:

[edthecynic]

"if you look at LFPR over a wide span of time.........." you notice it has INCREASED THE RATE it was falling at, under obama, and you also notice it isnt to a large degree because of the increase in retiring Baby Boomers



try again.............................

Actually it IS due to the aging Boomer population.
First of all, as they age they retire.
Secondly as they age they become disabled.
And thirdly as they age, more adults leave the workforce to care for an aging or disabled family member.

i'm glad you posted this idiot; because your fellow loser Faun accused me of saying something that isnt true when he dared me to show one person saying all of most of the lower LFPR is because of retiring Baby Boomers.

right about now you two idiots should be talking this out no????

You obviously can't read! I listed THREE (3) reasons for a dropping LPR only ONE (1) of which was retiring Boomers.

 

[edthecynic]

and i'm merely pointing out you're bragging how great things are when obama TOOK THAT 13 MILLION BUSH ADDED AND ADDED ANOTHER 13 MILLION

And you are bragging about how great things were under Bush when he added 14 million to the food stamp rolls. If adding 13 million to food stamps contradicts the UE rate for Obama then 14 million added to food stamps under Bush also contradicts HIS UE rate.
Get it?

no i dont get is because AGAIN; obama's bragging about his economic figures that INCLUDE THE INCREASE THAT HAPPENED UNDER BUSH. THAT MEANS, to people are arent crybaby left-wing losers like you, that obama is bragging about food stamp enrollment numbers on his watch that are about 46 MILLION.

what is it about reality that bothers you losers so much>????

it's simple, if things are so great now why arent food stamps under obama AT LEAST DOWN TO WHAT HE "INHERITED" FROM BUSH, AND NOT UP BY ANOTHER 13 MILLION going into obama's EIGHT YEAR?

The number on food stamps IS decreasing now that we are recovering from the Bush Depression that increased their number to record highs.

 

[bedowin62]

and i'm merely pointing out you're bragging how great things are when obama TOOK THAT 13 MILLION BUSH ADDED AND ADDED ANOTHER 13 MILLION

And you are bragging about how great things were under Bush when he added 14 million to the food stamp rolls. If adding 13 million to food stamps contradicts the UE rate for Obama then 14 million added to food stamps under Bush also contradicts HIS UE rate.
Get it?

no i dont get is because AGAIN; obama's bragging about his economic figures that INCLUDE THE INCREASE THAT HAPPENED UNDER BUSH. THAT MEANS, to people are arent crybaby left-wing losers like you, that obama is bragging about food stamp enrollment numbers on his watch that are about 46 MILLION.

what is it about reality that bothers you losers so much>????

it's simple, if things are so great now why arent food stamps under obama AT LEAST DOWN TO WHAT HE "INHERITED" FROM BUSH, AND NOT UP BY ANOTHER 13 MILLION going into obama's EIGHT YEAR?

The number on food stamps IS decreasing now that we are recovering from the Bush Depression that increased their number to record highs.

again you're simply a laughable LOSER. "decreasing" from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA, AND STILL 13 MILLION HIGHER THAN THEY WERE UNDER BUSH, EVEN IN HIS WORST YEAR

 

[edthecynic]

IF YOU want to say the bush years; particularly the last two, arent as good as the Clinton years no reasonable Republican will argue with that.

Food stamp rolls INCREASED by nearly 10 million during Bush's first 6 years.

 

[Faun]

"if you look at LFPR over a wide span of time.........." you notice it has INCREASED THE RATE it was falling at, under obama, and you also notice it isnt to a large degree because of the increase in retiring Baby Boomers



try again.............................

Actually it IS due to the aging Boomer population.
First of all, as they age they retire.
Secondly as they age they become disabled.
And thirdly as they age, more adults leave the workforce to care for an aging or disabled family member.

i'm glad you posted this idiot; because your fellow loser Faun accused me of saying something that isnt true when he dared me to show one person saying all of most of the lower LFPR is because of retiring Baby Boomers.

right about now you two idiots should be talking this out no????

Of course you're lying. Evidence of that is how you switched from accusing Liberals for attributing 100% of the drop to baby boomers to where you're now saying it's mostly due to them.

"Most" isn't "all," now is it, bedwtter?

 

[bedowin62]

you MIGHT have been able to make your idiotic case in Obama Years One or two, heck let's throw in year 3; but at the END OF YEAR SEVEN it's just pathetic. you're trying to have it both ways, just so typical of you crybabies

 

[edthecynic]

and i'm merely pointing out you're bragging how great things are when obama TOOK THAT 13 MILLION BUSH ADDED AND ADDED ANOTHER 13 MILLION

And you are bragging about how great things were under Bush when he added 14 million to the food stamp rolls. If adding 13 million to food stamps contradicts the UE rate for Obama then 14 million added to food stamps under Bush also contradicts HIS UE rate.
Get it?

no i dont get is because AGAIN; obama's bragging about his economic figures that INCLUDE THE INCREASE THAT HAPPENED UNDER BUSH. THAT MEANS, to people are arent crybaby left-wing losers like you, that obama is bragging about food stamp enrollment numbers on his watch that are about 46 MILLION.

what is it about reality that bothers you losers so much>????

it's simple, if things are so great now why arent food stamps under obama AT LEAST DOWN TO WHAT HE "INHERITED" FROM BUSH, AND NOT UP BY ANOTHER 13 MILLION going into obama's EIGHT YEAR?

The number on food stamps IS decreasing now that we are recovering from the Bush Depression that increased their number to record highs.

again you're simply a laughable LOSER. "decreasing" from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA, AND STILL 13 MILLION HIGHER THAN THEY WERE UNDER BUSH, EVEN IN HIS WORST YEAR

The highs were due to Bush's Depression which didn't end the day he left office. Bush added nearly 10 million to the food stamp rolls BEFORE his depression even started.

 

[bedowin62]

"if you look at LFPR over a wide span of time.........." you notice it has INCREASED THE RATE it was falling at, under obama, and you also notice it isnt to a large degree because of the increase in retiring Baby Boomers



try again.............................

Actually it IS due to the aging Boomer population.
First of all, as they age they retire.
Secondly as they age they become disabled.
And thirdly as they age, more adults leave the workforce to care for an aging or disabled family member.

i'm glad you posted this idiot; because your fellow loser Faun accused me of saying something that isnt true when he dared me to show one person saying all of most of the lower LFPR is because of retiring Baby Boomers.

right about now you two idiots should be talking this out no????

Of course you're lying. Evidence of that is how you switched from accusing Liberals for attributing 100% of the drop to baby boomers to where you're now saying it's mostly due to them.

"Mostly" isn't "all," now is it, bedwtter?

virtually every single one of his "three" was, no IS tied to being aged and in the workforce. they arent 3 seperate reasons they are all the same idiot

seriously what clowns!!

 

[bedowin62]

and i'm merely pointing out you're bragging how great things are when obama TOOK THAT 13 MILLION BUSH ADDED AND ADDED ANOTHER 13 MILLION

And you are bragging about how great things were under Bush when he added 14 million to the food stamp rolls. If adding 13 million to food stamps contradicts the UE rate for Obama then 14 million added to food stamps under Bush also contradicts HIS UE rate.
Get it?

no i dont get is because AGAIN; obama's bragging about his economic figures that INCLUDE THE INCREASE THAT HAPPENED UNDER BUSH. THAT MEANS, to people are arent crybaby left-wing losers like you, that obama is bragging about food stamp enrollment numbers on his watch that are about 46 MILLION.

what is it about reality that bothers you losers so much>????

it's simple, if things are so great now why arent food stamps under obama AT LEAST DOWN TO WHAT HE "INHERITED" FROM BUSH, AND NOT UP BY ANOTHER 13 MILLION going into obama's EIGHT YEAR?

The number on food stamps IS decreasing now that we are recovering from the Bush Depression that increased their number to record highs.

again you're simply a laughable LOSER. "decreasing" from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA, AND STILL 13 MILLION HIGHER THAN THEY WERE UNDER BUSH, EVEN IN HIS WORST YEAR

The highs were due to Bush's Depression which didn't end the day he left office. Bush added nearly 10 million to the food stamp rolls BEFORE his depression even started.

now it was a "depression"

another idiotic item you cant begin to back up!
keep the hits coming clown!! lol

 

[bedowin62]

i see two idiots addicted to self-delusions

how sad.......................................

 

[bedowin62]

i asked you two losers a long time ago to explain why WORKING-AGE AND ABLE-BODIED workers are dropping out of the workforce. isnt it you idiots that say welfare of all kinds, even if you get all of the programs availabe at once, isnt enough to survive on and people really just want to work???

so what up???

 

[edthecynic]

virtually every single one of his "three" was, no IS tied to being aged and in the workforce. they arent 3 seperate reasons they are all the same idiot

Yes, as I stated tied to an AGING population, but not all 3 tied to RETIREMENT. They are undeniably THREE (3) separate reasons only ONE (1) of which is retirement.

 

[edthecynic]

And you are bragging about how great things were under Bush when he added 14 million to the food stamp rolls. If adding 13 million to food stamps contradicts the UE rate for Obama then 14 million added to food stamps under Bush also contradicts HIS UE rate.
Get it?

no i dont get is because AGAIN; obama's bragging about his economic figures that INCLUDE THE INCREASE THAT HAPPENED UNDER BUSH. THAT MEANS, to people are arent crybaby left-wing losers like you, that obama is bragging about food stamp enrollment numbers on his watch that are about 46 MILLION.

what is it about reality that bothers you losers so much>????

it's simple, if things are so great now why arent food stamps under obama AT LEAST DOWN TO WHAT HE "INHERITED" FROM BUSH, AND NOT UP BY ANOTHER 13 MILLION going into obama's EIGHT YEAR?

The number on food stamps IS decreasing now that we are recovering from the Bush Depression that increased their number to record highs.

again you're simply a laughable LOSER. "decreasing" from record highs SET UNDER OBAMA, AND STILL 13 MILLION HIGHER THAN THEY WERE UNDER BUSH, EVEN IN HIS WORST YEAR

The highs were due to Bush's Depression which didn't end the day he left office. Bush added nearly 10 million to the food stamp rolls BEFORE his depression even started.

now it was a "depression"

another idiotic item you cant begin to back up!
keep the hits coming clown!! lol

Depression to distinguish it from Bush's 2001 recession.

 

[bedowin62]

virtually every single one of his "three" was, no IS tied to being aged and in the workforce. they arent 3 seperate reasons they are all the same idiot

Yes, as I stated tied to an AGING population, but not all 3 tied to RETIREMENT. They are undeniably THREE (3) separate reasons only ONE (1) of which is retirement.

and once again; none of that explains why WORKING-AGE AND ABLE-BODIED workers are dropping out.

you're just a coward dude, face it

 

[Faun]

"if you look at LFPR over a wide span of time.........." you notice it has INCREASED THE RATE it was falling at, under obama, and you also notice it isnt to a large degree because of the increase in retiring Baby Boomers



try again.............................

Actually it IS due to the aging Boomer population.
First of all, as they age they retire.
Secondly as they age they become disabled.
And thirdly as they age, more adults leave the workforce to care for an aging or disabled family member.

i'm glad you posted this idiot; because your fellow loser Faun accused me of saying something that isnt true when he dared me to show one person saying all of most of the lower LFPR is because of retiring Baby Boomers.

right about now you two idiots should be talking this out no????

Of course you're lying. Evidence of that is how you switched from accusing Liberals for attributing 100% of the drop to baby boomers to where you're now saying it's mostly due to them.

"Mostly" isn't "all," now is it, bedwtter?

virtually every single one of his "three" was, no IS tied to being aged and in the workforce. they arent 3 seperate reasons they are all the same idiot

seriously what clowns!!

You claimed Liberals attribute 100% of the labor force drop to retiring baby boomers. You still can't quote one as saying that and your inability to understand what Ed said only makes you look dumber as he did not attribute 100% of the drop to baby boomers retiring.

 

[bedowin62]

"if you look at LFPR over a wide span of time.........." you notice it has INCREASED THE RATE it was falling at, under obama, and you also notice it isnt to a large degree because of the increase in retiring Baby Boomers



try again.............................

Actually it IS due to the aging Boomer population.
First of all, as they age they retire.
Secondly as they age they become disabled.
And thirdly as they age, more adults leave the workforce to care for an aging or disabled family member.

i'm glad you posted this idiot; because your fellow loser Faun accused me of saying something that isnt true when he dared me to show one person saying all of most of the lower LFPR is because of retiring Baby Boomers.

right about now you two idiots should be talking this out no????

Of course you're lying. Evidence of that is how you switched from accusing Liberals for attributing 100% of the drop to baby boomers to where you're now saying it's mostly due to them.

"Mostly" isn't "all," now is it, bedwtter?

virtually every single one of his "three" was, no IS tied to being aged and in the workforce. they arent 3 seperate reasons they are all the same idiot

seriously what clowns!!

You claimed Liberals attribute 100% of the labor force drop to retiring baby boomers. You still can't quote one as saying that and your inability to understand what Ed said only makes you look dumber as he did not attribute 100% of the drop to baby boomers retiring.

actually if you just look up stunod; you will say he says "Actually it IS due to the aging Boomer population."

and proceeded to give three FACTORS why it "IS DUE TO THE AGING BOOMER POPULATION" (HIS WORDS)

YOU'RE A CLOWN; not man enough to know or admit when you're bested

 

[bedowin62]

those are three factors of the same issue. they are not seperate reasons.

thanks for playing though......................

 

[Faun]

those are three factors of the same issue. they are not seperate reasons.

thanks for playing though......................

Too fucking retarded. he did not attribute 100% of the drop to baby boomers retiring.

And that was your claim, as though anybody did.

 

[bedowin62]

those are three factors of the same issue. they are not seperate reasons.

thanks for playing though......................

Too fucking retarded. he did not attribute 100% of the drop to baby boomers retiring.

And that was your claim, as though anybody did.

yes he did; because both of the other reasons are merely factors of the first one

you're such an intellectual midget; not even worthy of my time.

worse than a mental midget though is you just being a coward. you know what he said; all of the three items are related to each other, and that is being of retirement age. none of them explain why WORKING-AGE and ABLE-BODIED workers are dropping out of the Labor market

 

[edthecynic]

yes he did; because both of the other reasons are merely factors of the first one

No, they are factors of AGING, not retirement. Only ONE aging factor is due to retirement. People become disabled at any age including before they reach retirement age. And family caretakers can also be any age.