Here’s What The Unemployment Rate Looks Like If You Add Back Labor Force Dropouts

[Conservative65]

If those lazy people can get a check funded through taxes paid by those of us that aren't lazy and willing to work, they count. When those of us that are forced to support them because they don't want to work no longer have to do so, they will no longer count. I don't care if someone doesn't want to work as long as the fruits of my labor aren't forcibly taken to feed them.

Well, that's the thing...Many are portraying those Not in the Labor Force as leeches and "takers" etc, but the fact is that the bigest groups are retrirees and the disabled. Students (age 16 and older) are another large group, and while stay home spouses are assuradly a significant group, those are harder to measure. The latest real data is that in March 2013 there were about 25 million married women who lived with their spouse and were Not in the Labor Force. 10 million had children under 18.

So we really can't tell how all the people not in the labor force are being supported or by whom.

Here's the thing you missed. I addressed toxicmedia's statement that retired people, children, and the lazy who don't want to work don't count. My response didn't address the children or retired people. If you're too young to work or, like my parents, that are in their seventies and worked from the time they were 15, you shouldn't count. However, if you able to work, choose not to, then request that you be supported by taxpayers through various social programs, you're a leechy and a taker. If you're a parent staying at home taking care of your kids and the spouse is supporting the family, you're not a taker. If you can but won't work, you're a lazy leech if the rest of us support you.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work or who are in a situation not of their own doing. However, if you can but won't work or caused your own problem now demanding someone else pay the price, I'll watch you go without before giving you a penny.

 

[Mr Natural]

By "Labor Force Dropouts", are you referring to people who no longer want or need to work for a living?

 

[pinqy]

If those lazy people can get a check funded through taxes paid by those of us that aren't lazy and willing to work, they count. When those of us that are forced to support them because they don't want to work no longer have to do so, they will no longer count. I don't care if someone doesn't want to work as long as the fruits of my labor aren't forcibly taken to feed them.

Well, that's the thing...Many are portraying those Not in the Labor Force as leeches and "takers" etc, but the fact is that the bigest groups are retrirees and the disabled. Students (age 16 and older) are another large group, and while stay home spouses are assuradly a significant group, those are harder to measure. The latest real data is that in March 2013 there were about 25 million married women who lived with their spouse and were Not in the Labor Force. 10 million had children under 18.

So we really can't tell how all the people not in the labor force are being supported or by whom.

Here's the thing you missed. I addressed toxicmedia's statement that retired people, children, and the lazy who don't want to work don't count. My response didn't address the children or retired people. If you're too young to work or, like my parents, that are in their seventies and worked from the time they were 15, you shouldn't count. However, if you able to work, choose not to, then request that you be supported by taxpayers through various social programs, you're a leechy and a taker. If you're a parent staying at home taking care of your kids and the spouse is supporting the family, you're not a taker. If you can but won't work, you're a lazy leech if the rest of us support you.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work or who are in a situation not of their own doing. However, if you can but won't work or caused your own problem now demanding someone else pay the price, I'll watch you go without before giving you a penny.

I think you missed my point.....there are 92,898,000 (seasonally adjusted) people not in the labor force. How many of them fit your criteria of being able to work, choosing not to, and requesting support by taxpayers? There's no way to know.

Plus it's subjective...Is lack of transportation or child care a "choice?" How do you determine who truly can't work?

 

[AceRothstein]

By "Labor Force Dropouts", are you referring to people who no longer want or need to work for a living?

If you are being intellectually honest, you wouldn't call these people dropouts, they just aren't participating in the labor force But everyone knows that the conservatives who are starting threads like this one on this board are far from intellectually honest.

 

[Conservative65]

If those lazy people can get a check funded through taxes paid by those of us that aren't lazy and willing to work, they count. When those of us that are forced to support them because they don't want to work no longer have to do so, they will no longer count. I don't care if someone doesn't want to work as long as the fruits of my labor aren't forcibly taken to feed them.

Well, that's the thing...Many are portraying those Not in the Labor Force as leeches and "takers" etc, but the fact is that the bigest groups are retrirees and the disabled. Students (age 16 and older) are another large group, and while stay home spouses are assuradly a significant group, those are harder to measure. The latest real data is that in March 2013 there were about 25 million married women who lived with their spouse and were Not in the Labor Force. 10 million had children under 18.

So we really can't tell how all the people not in the labor force are being supported or by whom.

Here's the thing you missed. I addressed toxicmedia's statement that retired people, children, and the lazy who don't want to work don't count. My response didn't address the children or retired people. If you're too young to work or, like my parents, that are in their seventies and worked from the time they were 15, you shouldn't count. However, if you able to work, choose not to, then request that you be supported by taxpayers through various social programs, you're a leechy and a taker. If you're a parent staying at home taking care of your kids and the spouse is supporting the family, you're not a taker. If you can but won't work, you're a lazy leech if the rest of us support you.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work or who are in a situation not of their own doing. However, if you can but won't work or caused your own problem now demanding someone else pay the price, I'll watch you go without before giving you a penny.

I think you missed my point.....there are 92,898,000 (seasonally adjusted) people not in the labor force. How many of them fit your criteria of being able to work, choosing not to, and requesting support by taxpayers? There's no way to know.

Plus it's subjective...Is lack of transportation or child care a "choice?" How do you determine who truly can't work?

I think you missed it. Toxicmedia used the specific example of people who don't want to work and HE called them lazy. That means they can work but don't want to and should be counted.

 

[kiwiman127]

The way the unemployment numbers are reached are the exact same methodology that has been used for decades.
" Romney calls the U-6 number the “real unemployment rate,” but BLS spokesman Gary Steinberg said the agency does not refer to U-6 as any kind of “unemployment rate,” real or otherwise, because it includes people who are employed, albeit part-time. The U-3 figure is the “official unemployment rate,” Steinberg said, and has been calculated the same way for decades"
What s the Real Jobless Rate

 

[AceRothstein]

If those lazy people can get a check funded through taxes paid by those of us that aren't lazy and willing to work, they count. When those of us that are forced to support them because they don't want to work no longer have to do so, they will no longer count. I don't care if someone doesn't want to work as long as the fruits of my labor aren't forcibly taken to feed them.

Well, that's the thing...Many are portraying those Not in the Labor Force as leeches and "takers" etc, but the fact is that the bigest groups are retrirees and the disabled. Students (age 16 and older) are another large group, and while stay home spouses are assuradly a significant group, those are harder to measure. The latest real data is that in March 2013 there were about 25 million married women who lived with their spouse and were Not in the Labor Force. 10 million had children under 18.

So we really can't tell how all the people not in the labor force are being supported or by whom.

Here's the thing you missed. I addressed toxicmedia's statement that retired people, children, and the lazy who don't want to work don't count. My response didn't address the children or retired people. If you're too young to work or, like my parents, that are in their seventies and worked from the time they were 15, you shouldn't count. However, if you able to work, choose not to, then request that you be supported by taxpayers through various social programs, you're a leechy and a taker. If you're a parent staying at home taking care of your kids and the spouse is supporting the family, you're not a taker. If you can but won't work, you're a lazy leech if the rest of us support you.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work or who are in a situation not of their own doing. However, if you can but won't work or caused your own problem now demanding someone else pay the price, I'll watch you go without before giving you a penny.

I think you missed my point.....there are 92,898,000 (seasonally adjusted) people not in the labor force. How many of them fit your criteria of being able to work, choosing not to, and requesting support by taxpayers? There's no way to know.

Plus it's subjective...Is lack of transportation or child care a "choice?" How do you determine who truly can't work?

I think you missed it. Toxicmedia used the specific example of people who don't want to work and HE called them lazy. That means they can work but don't want to and should be counted.

He said those who don't want to work but can shouldn't be counted in the unemployment rate and they aren't. They are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate and would lower this number.

 

[Conservative65]

If those lazy people can get a check funded through taxes paid by those of us that aren't lazy and willing to work, they count. When those of us that are forced to support them because they don't want to work no longer have to do so, they will no longer count. I don't care if someone doesn't want to work as long as the fruits of my labor aren't forcibly taken to feed them.

Well, that's the thing...Many are portraying those Not in the Labor Force as leeches and "takers" etc, but the fact is that the bigest groups are retrirees and the disabled. Students (age 16 and older) are another large group, and while stay home spouses are assuradly a significant group, those are harder to measure. The latest real data is that in March 2013 there were about 25 million married women who lived with their spouse and were Not in the Labor Force. 10 million had children under 18.

So we really can't tell how all the people not in the labor force are being supported or by whom.

Here's the thing you missed. I addressed toxicmedia's statement that retired people, children, and the lazy who don't want to work don't count. My response didn't address the children or retired people. If you're too young to work or, like my parents, that are in their seventies and worked from the time they were 15, you shouldn't count. However, if you able to work, choose not to, then request that you be supported by taxpayers through various social programs, you're a leechy and a taker. If you're a parent staying at home taking care of your kids and the spouse is supporting the family, you're not a taker. If you can but won't work, you're a lazy leech if the rest of us support you.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work or who are in a situation not of their own doing. However, if you can but won't work or caused your own problem now demanding someone else pay the price, I'll watch you go without before giving you a penny.

I think you missed my point.....there are 92,898,000 (seasonally adjusted) people not in the labor force. How many of them fit your criteria of being able to work, choosing not to, and requesting support by taxpayers? There's no way to know.

Plus it's subjective...Is lack of transportation or child care a "choice?" How do you determine who truly can't work?

I think you missed it. Toxicmedia used the specific example of people who don't want to work and HE called them lazy. That means they can work but don't want to and should be counted.

He said those who don't want to work but can shouldn't be counted in the unemployment rate and they aren't. They are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate and would lower this number.

They should count as unemployed. It would give a better reading of what the unemployment rate actually is. Not able to work is different than not wanting to work.

 

[pinqy]

Well, that's the thing...Many are portraying those Not in the Labor Force as leeches and "takers" etc, but the fact is that the bigest groups are retrirees and the disabled. Students (age 16 and older) are another large group, and while stay home spouses are assuradly a significant group, those are harder to measure. The latest real data is that in March 2013 there were about 25 million married women who lived with their spouse and were Not in the Labor Force. 10 million had children under 18.

So we really can't tell how all the people not in the labor force are being supported or by whom.

Here's the thing you missed. I addressed toxicmedia's statement that retired people, children, and the lazy who don't want to work don't count. My response didn't address the children or retired people. If you're too young to work or, like my parents, that are in their seventies and worked from the time they were 15, you shouldn't count. However, if you able to work, choose not to, then request that you be supported by taxpayers through various social programs, you're a leechy and a taker. If you're a parent staying at home taking care of your kids and the spouse is supporting the family, you're not a taker. If you can but won't work, you're a lazy leech if the rest of us support you.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work or who are in a situation not of their own doing. However, if you can but won't work or caused your own problem now demanding someone else pay the price, I'll watch you go without before giving you a penny.

I think you missed my point.....there are 92,898,000 (seasonally adjusted) people not in the labor force. How many of them fit your criteria of being able to work, choosing not to, and requesting support by taxpayers? There's no way to know.

Plus it's subjective...Is lack of transportation or child care a "choice?" How do you determine who truly can't work?

I think you missed it. Toxicmedia used the specific example of people who don't want to work and HE called them lazy. That means they can work but don't want to and should be counted.

He said those who don't want to work but can shouldn't be counted in the unemployment rate and they aren't. They are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate and would lower this number.

They should count as unemployed. It would give a better reading of what the unemployment rate actually is. Not able to work is different than not wanting to work.

Now I'm confused for sure. Who exactly are you saying should count as unemployed?

 

[Conservative65]

Here's the thing you missed. I addressed toxicmedia's statement that retired people, children, and the lazy who don't want to work don't count. My response didn't address the children or retired people. If you're too young to work or, like my parents, that are in their seventies and worked from the time they were 15, you shouldn't count. However, if you able to work, choose not to, then request that you be supported by taxpayers through various social programs, you're a leechy and a taker. If you're a parent staying at home taking care of your kids and the spouse is supporting the family, you're not a taker. If you can but won't work, you're a lazy leech if the rest of us support you.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work or who are in a situation not of their own doing. However, if you can but won't work or caused your own problem now demanding someone else pay the price, I'll watch you go without before giving you a penny.

I think you missed my point.....there are 92,898,000 (seasonally adjusted) people not in the labor force. How many of them fit your criteria of being able to work, choosing not to, and requesting support by taxpayers? There's no way to know.

Plus it's subjective...Is lack of transportation or child care a "choice?" How do you determine who truly can't work?

I think you missed it. Toxicmedia used the specific example of people who don't want to work and HE called them lazy. That means they can work but don't want to and should be counted.

He said those who don't want to work but can shouldn't be counted in the unemployment rate and they aren't. They are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate and would lower this number.

They should count as unemployed. It would give a better reading of what the unemployment rate actually is. Not able to work is different than not wanting to work.

Now I'm confused for sure. Who exactly are you saying should count as unemployed?

Those that toxicmedia defined as lazy. He said those who don't want to work but can, what he called lazy, shouldn't be counted if they don't have a job. I say they should because the reason for not having a job isn't based on can't but won't.

 

[G.T.]

Thankfully the majority of the people aren't falling for the crap being put out under this deceitful administration anymore. It's more ugly than you think.

SNIP:

March 6, 2015 By Sean Davis
The Department of Labor announced today that the official unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent last month, the lowest it’s been since Spring of 2008. Good news, right? Well, kind of. The official unemployment rate masks a problem that’s been plaguing the economy since shortly before the 2009 recession: a continuing decline in the labor force participation rate, which basically measures the percentage of the able-bodied population that’s either working or looking for work. After holding steady at roughly 66 percent from 2004 through late 2008, the labor force participation has been falling, and falling, and falling some more, with no end in sight.

This decline has significant effects on the official unemployment rate. People who are unemployed and eventually stop looking for work are no longer counted as being part of the labor force, which means they’re no longer counted by U.S. statistical agencies as being unemployed (you can read in detail about the math underlying this dynamic here). The result? An artificially low official unemployment rate.



So what does the unemployment rate picture look like if you take into account all of the labor force droputs since the end of the recession in June of 2009? Not pretty

ALL of it here:

This Chart Shows How Labor Force Dropouts Mask The Unemployment Rate

And what is the usual USA unemployment rate when you "add back" labor force drop outs, historically?

You know? So we have something to compare it to and its not just a hack number to make partisan hay over.....

 

[AceRothstein]

Well, that's the thing...Many are portraying those Not in the Labor Force as leeches and "takers" etc, but the fact is that the bigest groups are retrirees and the disabled. Students (age 16 and older) are another large group, and while stay home spouses are assuradly a significant group, those are harder to measure. The latest real data is that in March 2013 there were about 25 million married women who lived with their spouse and were Not in the Labor Force. 10 million had children under 18.

So we really can't tell how all the people not in the labor force are being supported or by whom.

Here's the thing you missed. I addressed toxicmedia's statement that retired people, children, and the lazy who don't want to work don't count. My response didn't address the children or retired people. If you're too young to work or, like my parents, that are in their seventies and worked from the time they were 15, you shouldn't count. However, if you able to work, choose not to, then request that you be supported by taxpayers through various social programs, you're a leechy and a taker. If you're a parent staying at home taking care of your kids and the spouse is supporting the family, you're not a taker. If you can but won't work, you're a lazy leech if the rest of us support you.

I don't have a problem helping those who truly can't work or who are in a situation not of their own doing. However, if you can but won't work or caused your own problem now demanding someone else pay the price, I'll watch you go without before giving you a penny.

I think you missed my point.....there are 92,898,000 (seasonally adjusted) people not in the labor force. How many of them fit your criteria of being able to work, choosing not to, and requesting support by taxpayers? There's no way to know.

Plus it's subjective...Is lack of transportation or child care a "choice?" How do you determine who truly can't work?

I think you missed it. Toxicmedia used the specific example of people who don't want to work and HE called them lazy. That means they can work but don't want to and should be counted.

He said those who don't want to work but can shouldn't be counted in the unemployment rate and they aren't. They are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate and would lower this number.

They should count as unemployed. It would give a better reading of what the unemployment rate actually is. Not able to work is different than not wanting to work.

That makes no sense. Why should someone who isn't looking for work count as unemployed and affect the unemployment rate? There is a reason the BLS puts out different measures, your way would blur everything.

 

[pinqy]

I think you missed my point.....there are 92,898,000 (seasonally adjusted) people not in the labor force. How many of them fit your criteria of being able to work, choosing not to, and requesting support by taxpayers? There's no way to know.

Plus it's subjective...Is lack of transportation or child care a "choice?" How do you determine who truly can't work?

I think you missed it. Toxicmedia used the specific example of people who don't want to work and HE called them lazy. That means they can work but don't want to and should be counted.

He said those who don't want to work but can shouldn't be counted in the unemployment rate and they aren't. They are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate and would lower this number.

They should count as unemployed. It would give a better reading of what the unemployment rate actually is. Not able to work is different than not wanting to work.

Now I'm confused for sure. Who exactly are you saying should count as unemployed?

Those that toxicmedia defined as lazy. He said those who don't want to work but can, what he called lazy, shouldn't be counted if they don't have a job. I say they should because the reason for not having a job isn't based on can't but won't.

Why does that matter? The point of measuring unemployment is to see how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to work is unavailable and it really doesn't matter why.

 

[Conservative65]

I think you missed it. Toxicmedia used the specific example of people who don't want to work and HE called them lazy. That means they can work but don't want to and should be counted.

He said those who don't want to work but can shouldn't be counted in the unemployment rate and they aren't. They are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate and would lower this number.

They should count as unemployed. It would give a better reading of what the unemployment rate actually is. Not able to work is different than not wanting to work.

Now I'm confused for sure. Who exactly are you saying should count as unemployed?

Those that toxicmedia defined as lazy. He said those who don't want to work but can, what he called lazy, shouldn't be counted if they don't have a job. I say they should because the reason for not having a job isn't based on can't but won't.

Why does that matter? The point of measuring unemployment is to see how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to work is unavailable and it really doesn't matter why.

Someone not trying to work is unwilling. Unavailable means they can't. Unwilling means they won't. Two different things.

 

[pinqy]

He said those who don't want to work but can shouldn't be counted in the unemployment rate and they aren't. They are counted in the Labor Force Participation Rate and would lower this number.

They should count as unemployed. It would give a better reading of what the unemployment rate actually is. Not able to work is different than not wanting to work.

Now I'm confused for sure. Who exactly are you saying should count as unemployed?

Those that toxicmedia defined as lazy. He said those who don't want to work but can, what he called lazy, shouldn't be counted if they don't have a job. I say they should because the reason for not having a job isn't based on can't but won't.

Why does that matter? The point of measuring unemployment is to see how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to work is unavailable and it really doesn't matter why.

Someone not trying to work is unwilling. Unavailable means they can't. Unwilling means they won't. Two different things.

Not on a practical level they're not. It doesn't matter if someone is unwilling or unable: he did nothing about work, was not participating in the labor force, and could not have been hired. That's what's important.

Besides, the difference between unwilling and unable is often too subjective. With 60,000 households representing 250,000,000 people definitions really need to be objective.

 

[toxicmedia]

Thankfully the majority of the people aren't falling for the crap being put out under this deceitful administration anymore. It's more ugly than you think.

SNIP:

March 6, 2015 By Sean Davis
The Department of Labor announced today that the official unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent last month, the lowest it’s been since Spring of 2008. Good news, right? Well, kind of. The official unemployment rate masks a problem that’s been plaguing the economy since shortly before the 2009 recession: a continuing decline in the labor force participation rate, which basically measures the percentage of the able-bodied population that’s either working or looking for work. After holding steady at roughly 66 percent from 2004 through late 2008, the labor force participation has been falling, and falling, and falling some more, with no end in sight.

This decline has significant effects on the official unemployment rate. People who are unemployed and eventually stop looking for work are no longer counted as being part of the labor force, which means they’re no longer counted by U.S. statistical agencies as being unemployed (you can read in detail about the math underlying this dynamic here). The result? An artificially low official unemployment rate.



So what does the unemployment rate picture look like if you take into account all of the labor force droputs since the end of the recession in June of 2009? Not pretty

ALL of it here:

This Chart Shows How Labor Force Dropouts Mask The Unemployment Rate

Never mind the fact that Republican politicians nationwide have always used the "official" unemployment numbers to crow about how low unemployment is when they're in office...but...

If someone isn't looking for a job, that's called retired, or if they need one, and aren't looking, that's called lazy...and those people shouldn't be counted as unemployed.

Only people looking for work, or working, should figure into those numbers. That's why they don't count children, retired people, and lazy people.

Well then shut the fuck up. I dont want to hear liberals crying about the job situation when obama caused the problem in the first place.

Obama caused the recession that started before he became President?

Funny,I dont remember all you liberals crying 24-7 when booooooosh was in office.
Me personally I hope all you liberals end up under a bridge and begging on street corners. It's what you deserve.

Sorry,I work for a living.

You probably wait for your paychecks from the government, right?, and they pay for your healthcare?

 

[toxicmedia]

Never mind the fact that Republican politicians nationwide have always used the "official" unemployment numbers to crow about how low unemployment is when they're in office...but...

If someone isn't looking for a job, that's called retired, or if they need one, and aren't looking, that's called lazy...and those people shouldn't be counted as unemployed.

Only people looking for work, or working, should figure into those numbers. That's why they don't count children, retired people, and lazy people.

Well then shut the fuck up. I dont want to hear liberals crying about the job situation when obama caused the problem in the first place.

Obama caused the recession that started before he became President?

Funny,I dont remember all you liberals crying 24-7 when booooooosh was in office.
Me personally I hope all you liberals end up under a bridge and begging on street corners. It's what you deserve.

According to welfare and food stamp rates, it's more likely for that to happen to people in states run by republicans.

Dont care. Those are the liberals and they need to be thinned out.
Starve asshole.

Wow, homicidal huh?

 

[toxicmedia]

According to welfare and food stamp rates, it's more likely for that to happen to people in states run by republicans.

Dont care. Those are the liberals and they need to be thinned out.
Starve asshole.

"Starve asshole." I think that pretty much sums up what republicans want for America.

If you cant manage to take care of yourself? Fuck off and die.

You seem to have a lot of anger issues. I'd suggest seeing a therapist.

Nope. I'm happy as a pig in shit. I just no longer give a rats ass about liberals and their stupidity.
You morons keep making decisions that are detrimental to your own survival and I refuse to care anymore.
It wont effect me one way or another so go ahead with your self destruction.

Only a sick mind is happy about being irritable restless, and discontent...or angry

 

[kiwiman127]

By "Labor Force Dropouts", are you referring to people who no longer want or need to work for a living?

You mean like this group?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thankfully the majority of the people aren't falling for the crap being put out under this deceitful administration anymore. It's more ugly than you think.

SNIP:

March 6, 2015 By Sean Davis
The Department of Labor announced today that the official unemployment rate fell to 5.5 percent last month, the lowest it’s been since Spring of 2008. Good news, right? Well, kind of. The official unemployment rate masks a problem that’s been plaguing the economy since shortly before the 2009 recession: a continuing decline in the labor force participation rate, which basically measures the percentage of the able-bodied population that’s either working or looking for work. After holding steady at roughly 66 percent from 2004 through late 2008, the labor force participation has been falling, and falling, and falling some more, with no end in sight.

This decline has significant effects on the official unemployment rate. People who are unemployed and eventually stop looking for work are no longer counted as being part of the labor force, which means they’re no longer counted by U.S. statistical agencies as being unemployed (you can read in detail about the math underlying this dynamic here). The result? An artificially low official unemployment rate.



So what does the unemployment rate picture look like if you take into account all of the labor force droputs since the end of the recession in June of 2009? Not pretty

ALL of it here:

This Chart Shows How Labor Force Dropouts Mask The Unemployment Rate

Never mind the fact that Republican politicians nationwide have always used the "official" unemployment numbers to crow about how low unemployment is when they're in office...but...

If someone isn't looking for a job, that's called retired, or if they need one, and aren't looking, that's called lazy...and those people shouldn't be counted as unemployed.

Only people looking for work, or working, should figure into those numbers. That's why they don't count children, retired people, and lazy people.

Well then shut the fuck up. I dont want to hear liberals crying about the job situation when obama caused the problem in the first place.

Obama caused the recession that started before he became President?

Funny,I dont remember all you liberals crying 24-7 when booooooosh was in office.
Me personally I hope all you liberals end up under a bridge and begging on street corners. It's what you deserve.

Sorry,I work for a living.

You probably wait for your paychecks from the government, right?, and they pay for your healthcare?

Pffft ...hardly. In fact thats about as far from the truth as you could possibly get.