Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your 20 million is from 2007 the 3 million jobs is from 2009, so in typical dishonest CON$ervoFascist fashion you never compare apples to apples. And in typical Right-wing know-it-all ignorance you haven't considered the 17.5 million who retired since 2007.

so are you saying the economy is good?? U6 isn't 12%, income is not down 5% this isn't worst recovery since FDR and Obama is touring for the election talking about his wonderful economic performance?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[pinqy]

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a fucking chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a fuck how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Every time CON$ervoFascism fails,.

dear Red China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminted 40% of the world's poverty!! Doesn't that make you seem stupid?

 

[edthecynic]

Oh and there were 115,818,000 full time employed in January 2009 and 119,287,000 in September 2014'

yes and population went up 20 million during that period so as everyone knows we are falling way way behind with u6 at 12% and wages down 5%! Its worsr recover since Great liberal Depression. Even Obama can't beat FDR
.

The Civilian noninstitutional population only went up 14.5 million since 2009 and 13.5 million workers retired during the same period.

 

[Conservative65]

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.
Yeah, tell me about it.


So if Obama got the wrong information, who got fired? I mean it isnt like there is one guy giving him advice or information. It goes through many hands before ending up on his desk and they discuss it etc.
As for the GOP, the Dems controlled both Houses of Congress. The GOP was powerless to stop anything.

Why would anybody get fired? They gave an estimate that was off by 20%. Not a big deal. Besides, along with their estimate was a huge disclaimer that being an estimate, their figures could be off by substantial amounts.

That SOB should have been fired. I thought he was smart. Apparently, skin color played more of a role in your vote for him that knowing what he was doing. If he supported it, it doesn't matter who provided it to him. HE said it.

Any disclaimer is nothing more than saying we can screw up and people like you will still kiss their asses. Pucker up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Oh and there were 115,818,000 full time employed in January 2009 and 119,287,000 in September 2014'

yes and population went up 20 million during that period so as everyone knows we are falling way way behind with u6 at 12% and wages down 5%! Its worsr recover since Great liberal Depression. Even Obama can't beat FDR
.

The Civilian noninstitutional population only went up 14.5 million since 2009 and 13.5 million workers retired during the same period.

does that mean u6 is not 12%, wages are not down 5%, this is best recovery since FDR and Obama is on the stump talking about how great he's done for the economy?

 

[Conservative65]

I have explained

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

For someone who can't even read a simple chart, you are being awful judgmental.

Since you cannot explain said chart you are being pretty presumptuous.
I'll ask you: was Obama lying or merely grossly incompetent when he made those predictions?

I have already explained myself enough! just because you didn't graduate high school does not mean you can come here expecting Democrats to undergo special efforts to educate you.

So you can't explain it and it's my fault.

I have explained it. Let's see you debunk it! that's your job!

Your request to debunk what you said means you ASSume what you said made sense. When it doesn't, there is no need to debunk what is already considered a pile of shit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a fucking chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a fuck how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

 

[Faun]

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

dear we all know worker participation is very very low with many of those working having part time jobs and earning 5% less than in 2008. Most importantly, you must consider that population has grown 20 milllion since 2007 so we would need almost 20 million new jobs just to stay even.

Do you understand now?

I understand you're as retarded as biggulpernc who can't tell the difference between the number of people working; from the percentage of people working.

dear if most are working part time and making 5% less that is bad. Do you understand?

I understand that neither you nor biggulpernc understand the difference between the number of people working with the percentage of people working. But who knows, maybe some day even a conservative like you will figure it out.

dear, are you saying there are more or less full time jobs now than when Barry took office?

Why don't you just have "retard" tattooed across your forehead so you don't have to keep revealing it in your posts? Better yet, have it tattooed backwards so you can read it when you look in the mirror.

 

[Faun]

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a fucking chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a fuck how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Who knows, rightard? Percentages don't reveal how many people are included, they reveal the percentage of people within a larger group.

Again, which is bigger? 145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Non answer you need to go get better talking points and stop trying to sell shit

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a fuck how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Who knows, rightard? Percentages don't reveal how many people are included, they reveal the percentage of people within a larger group.

Again, which is bigger? 145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Non answer you need to go get better talking points and stop trying to sell shit

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

 

[Faun]

Bush jacked the U-6 rate from 7.3%

Dear, liberalism caused the housing bubble, not Bush. If we had had capitalism rather than the massive soviet regulation that characterized the housing market it would have been 100% impossible. For example the Fed had to print the money needed to inflate the bubble for years. And that was just one of 132 soviet liberal regulations controls and programs that were anti-captitalist. Way over your head -right?

Do you understand?

What a shame your delusions are fantasy, eh? Here in the real world, Bush and Republicans created the bubble. Hell, they even took credit for it until it burst.

"Thanks to OUR policies, home ownership in America is at an all time high." <applause> - George Bush, RNC acceptance speech ​

 

[Faun]

I really don't give a fuck how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Who knows, rightard? Percentages don't reveal how many people are included, they reveal the percentage of people within a larger group.

Again, which is bigger? 145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Non answer you need to go get better talking points and stop trying to sell shit

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

 

[pinqy]

Oh and there were 115,818,000 full time employed in January 2009 and 119,287,000 in September 2014'

yes and population went up 20 million during that period
.

So you admit you were wrong to say there were more full time workers when Obama took office? Good first step.

As for percentage: 115,818,000/234,739,000=49.3%
119,287,000/248,446,000=48% so that is a little lower, but so is employment overall (mostly due to a larger percent of people who don't want a job. as % of employment, it's about the same: 81.4% from 81.5%.

 

[pinqy]

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a fucking chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a fuck how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

I'm glad you're agreeing with me now

 

[JQPublic1]

I have explained

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

For someone who can't even read a simple chart, you are being awful judgmental.

Since you cannot explain said chart you are being pretty presumptuous.
I'll ask you: was Obama lying or merely grossly incompetent when he made those predictions?

I have already explained myself enough! just because you didn't graduate high school does not mean you can come here expecting Democrats to undergo special efforts to educate you.

So you can't explain it and it's my fault.

I have explained it. Let's see you debunk it! that's your job!

Your request to debunk what you said means you ASSume what you said made sense. When it doesn't, there is no need to debunk what is already considered a pile of shit.

Is there an echo in here or did another fly just enter the room?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Who knows, rightard? Percentages don't reveal how many people are included, they reveal the percentage of people within a larger group.

Again, which is bigger? 145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Non answer you need to go get better talking points and stop trying to sell shit

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a fuck how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

I'm glad you're agreeing with me now

But the unemployment is almost the same as 2008 July with fewer people in the work force in 2014

 

[Faun]

Who knows, rightard? Percentages don't reveal how many people are included, they reveal the percentage of people within a larger group.

Again, which is bigger? 145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Non answer you need to go get better talking points and stop trying to sell shit

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Of course they do. It doesn't matter if you don't like them. They are what they are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Non answer you need to go get better talking points and stop trying to sell shit

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Of course they do. It doesn't matter if you don't like them. They are what they are.

You're boring me with your fail son.