Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[Faun]

Ok, so you weren't pretending.

Meanwhile, you remain the only one here who doesn't understand it. Even after 2 explanations, you still don't get it. Clearly, you don't possess even the minimum mental faculties required to understand it. That's ok, Jester, I doubt anyone here (except you, of course) thought you did.

Nope, still no understanding of what "demonstrate" means.
You might want to try a dictionary or something. Meanwhile your chart remains floating like a turd in the toiletbowl.

cries the forum jester who admits he doesn't understand the chart.

Says thea ssclown who can't explain it.

You can't explain it because the chart doesnt make sense.

Both Faun and pingy's charts are crystal clear to us heterosexuals lurking about. Your mind is clouded by homosexual fantasies and your peculiar predilection.

Then why don't you go ahead and explain his chart. We'll wait.

It's been explained to you repeatedly. Even pinqy tried to get through your impenetrable armor of ignorance, but to no avail. You're ineducable, Jester. What's the point in anyone trying to explain it to you yet again since you've made it beyond clear that you just can't understand?

 

[JQPublic1]

Ok, so you weren't pretending.

Meanwhile, you remain the only one here who doesn't understand it. Even after 2 explanations, you still don't get it. Clearly, you don't possess even the minimum mental faculties required to understand it. That's ok, Jester, I doubt anyone here (except you, of course) thought you did.

Nope, still no understanding of what "demonstrate" means.
You might want to try a dictionary or something. Meanwhile your chart remains floating like a turd in the toiletbowl.

cries the forum jester who admits he doesn't understand the chart.

Says thea ssclown who can't explain it.

You can't explain it because the chart doesnt make sense.

Both Faun and pingy's charts are crystal clear to us heterosexuals lurking about. Your mind is clouded by homosexual fantasies and your peculiar predilection.

Then why don't you go ahead and explain his chart. We'll wait.

You didn't read post #412? I explained it there. Get Limbaugh's balls out of your eyes and take a peek!

 

[Siete]

I gave Rabid a link that explains the decline of the workforce in post 376.. it involved understanding math ... a 4th grader could understand it, but it was sooooooo far over his pointed head he's still lost in space... the space between his ears.

 

[Conservative65]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

 

[JQPublic1]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

Well, he was probably banking on the Republicans to keep their word when Romney, Limbaugh, et.al.. said that tax cuts for the "job creators" would create jobs! Don't blame Obama. Like you, he thought the GOP boyz would keep their word...they didn't!

 

[Faun]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomized

It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

 

[pinqy]

It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

 

[Faun]

It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

Again with the bait & switch??

You were complaining about the record high 92 million people not in the labor force. When you're showed how Reagan broke the record for the number of people not in the labor force too when he was president, you dishonestly switch to the participation rate.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope, still no understanding of what "demonstrate" means.
You might want to try a dictionary or something. Meanwhile your chart remains floating like a turd in the toiletbowl.

cries the forum jester who admits he doesn't understand the chart.

Says thea ssclown who can't explain it.

You can't explain it because the chart doesnt make sense.

Both Faun and pingy's charts are crystal clear to us heterosexuals lurking about. Your mind is clouded by homosexual fantasies and your peculiar predilection.

Then why don't you go ahead and explain his chart. We'll wait.

You didn't read post #412? I explained it there. Get Limbaugh's balls out of your eyes and take a peek!

OK. so you think your post there explains this graph. Is that right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

 

[JQPublic1]

cries the forum jester who admits he doesn't understand the chart.

Says thea ssclown who can't explain it.

You can't explain it because the chart doesnt make sense.

Both Faun and pingy's charts are crystal clear to us heterosexuals lurking about. Your mind is clouded by homosexual fantasies and your peculiar predilection.

Then why don't you go ahead and explain his chart. We'll wait.

You didn't read post #412? I explained it there. Get Limbaugh's balls out of your eyes and take a peek!

OK. so you think your post there explains this graph. Is that right?

That you think it doesn't causes me to question your education level.

 

[The Rabbi]

Says thea ssclown who can't explain it.

You can't explain it because the chart doesnt make sense.

Both Faun and pingy's charts are crystal clear to us heterosexuals lurking about. Your mind is clouded by homosexual fantasies and your peculiar predilection.

Then why don't you go ahead and explain his chart. We'll wait.

You didn't read post #412? I explained it there. Get Limbaugh's balls out of your eyes and take a peek!

OK. so you think your post there explains this graph. Is that right?

That you think it doesn't causes me to question your education level.

That you think it does tells me everything I need to know about yours.
That and the fact you didnt answer my question.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

Again with the bait & switch??

You were complaining about the record high 92 million people not in the labor force. When you're showed how Reagan broke the record for the number of people not in the labor force too when he was president, you dishonestly switch to the participation rate.

What fucking bait and switch?
Obama has the record set back in 78 by carter.

 

[Siete]

Both Faun and pingy's charts are crystal clear to us heterosexuals lurking about. Your mind is clouded by homosexual fantasies and your peculiar predilection.

Then why don't you go ahead and explain his chart. We'll wait.

You didn't read post #412? I explained it there. Get Limbaugh's balls out of your eyes and take a peek!

OK. so you think your post there explains this graph. Is that right?

That you think it doesn't causes me to question your education level.

That you think it does tells me everything I need to know about yours.
That and the fact you didnt answer my question.

the OP states "workforce" .... explaining the decline in the work force ..

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider


exactly what part of that are you too stupid to understand ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then why don't you go ahead and explain his chart. We'll wait.

You didn't read post #412? I explained it there. Get Limbaugh's balls out of your eyes and take a peek!

OK. so you think your post there explains this graph. Is that right?

That you think it doesn't causes me to question your education level.

That you think it does tells me everything I need to know about yours.
That and the fact you didnt answer my question.

the OP states "workforce" .... explaining the decline in the work force ..

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider


exactly what part of that are you too stupid to understand ?

The OP like you have snorted to much of obama's shit.

 

[Siete]

You didn't read post #412? I explained it there. Get Limbaugh's balls out of your eyes and take a peek!

OK. so you think your post there explains this graph. Is that right?

That you think it doesn't causes me to question your education level.

That you think it does tells me everything I need to know about yours.
That and the fact you didnt answer my question.

the OP states "workforce" .... explaining the decline in the work force ..

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider


exactly what part of that are you too stupid to understand ?

The OP like you have snorted to much of obama's shit.

like you snorted in post #16 ?

go wipe your face.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OK. so you think your post there explains this graph. Is that right?

That you think it doesn't causes me to question your education level.

That you think it does tells me everything I need to know about yours.
That and the fact you didnt answer my question.

the OP states "workforce" .... explaining the decline in the work force ..

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider


exactly what part of that are you too stupid to understand ?

The OP like you have snorted to much of obama's shit.

like you snorted in post #16 ?

go wipe your face.

You stupid little fuck my statement was true, pull your fucking head out of obama's asshole

 

[Siete]

That you think it doesn't causes me to question your education level.

That you think it does tells me everything I need to know about yours.
That and the fact you didnt answer my question.

the OP states "workforce" .... explaining the decline in the work force ..

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider


exactly what part of that are you too stupid to understand ?

The OP like you have snorted to much of obama's shit.

like you snorted in post #16 ?

go wipe your face.

You stupid little fuck my statement was true, pull your fucking head out of obama's asshole

classy comment for a back woods NC hick ... grow up.