313,000 Jobs

[HenryBHough]

In which case, the rebound for Obabble should have been stratospheric.

But it wasn't because he couldn't find a shovel ready job if it whacked him over the head.

But it (the shovel) wouldn't because it was distracted by a bigger, easier target with the same IQ. Moochell's ass.

 

[Faun]

I like how you totally avoided everything I posted. I guess that’s also part of your alternative universe?

At any rate, comparing recessions and their recoveries is like comparing people with cancer and their recoveries — everyone is different.

Obabble's fake recovery is the worst in modern history.

Still avoiding my post?

Here it is again... let’s see if you can address it this time...

WTF are you smoking? Who set the bar at 300,000K? 299,999K is “sub-par job growth” in you alternative universe?

Not to mention, Trump’s hit the 300K mark in 7.6% of his term.​

Here you go: Reagan created enough jobs to keep every addition to the Civilian Population fully employed. Obabble employed only half. That's the difference between Pro Growth vs. Pro Government Control policies, bub.

View attachment 181551

LOL

Now you’re comparing the labor force participation rate which is driven by demographics? That’s almost as rightarded as you’re idiotic claim that anything less than 300,000 jobs gained in a month is “sub par job growth.”

Reagan’s labor force was boosted by the womens’ lib movement. Obama’s was dinged by aging baby boomers. Neither president had anything to do with those factors. And Obama’s Recession was much deeper than Reagan’s and the economy wasn’t structurally broken in the 80’s like it was when Bush left office.

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

 

[asaratis]

Link it

Prove I am wrong........that is how things work in Trumpian America

In a court of law the onus is on the one who makes the statement.

This is not a court of law
This is Trumpian America

Burden of proof is on you to prove what I said was wrong

You lose

Well no and this is why you're viewed as an idiot .You claimed it, you prove it

SmellyIrishAss........Once again ....I Win!

You are unable to prove me wrong

Contrary to what you dimwitted ******* liberals practice, it is up to you to prove your claims with facts or links to facts. Provide same or shut the **** up.

 

[asaratis]

Funny how when jobs created last August took a dive because of the Texas hurricanes the left said it was all Trumps fault.

313,000 jobs gained 6 months later has nothing to do with Trump.

The left are stuck on stupid and are foaming at the mouth with their hate.

Those numbers are fake

Fat Donnie told us so

He embellishes the truth. U-6 numbers are not representative of unemployment related to those seeking jobs. U-3 numbers are. Both are valid stats depending on their use.

 

[asaratis]

No. Unlike you we are able to admit when things are good. We could nit pick like you guys did to Obama and say until all those things are fixed nothing will be good enough but we don't act like you

Come on sealy plenty of lefty’s crying in this thread. When Obama was in office, the extreme right cried when good happened and now the extreme left is crying when good happens. Party over America is a sad reality.

Who’s crying? All I see are folks on the left making fun of folks on the right for trashing Obama’s good numbers as phony; where now suddenly, for some reason, those same numbers are real.

Oh, the ol’ “they did it first” mentality. So you are just trolling, thanks for letting me know you aren’t serious.

Since when is highlighting rightie hypocrisy, “trolling?”

And who’s on the left here who’s not highlighting it? You never did answer that question....

Hey Papa, notice this isn't a thread started by a lefty? When you find us in a thread started by a lefty claiming things aren't going well right now, let us know. Because that's what righties did all 8 years of Obama even though he had like 80 straight months of job growth.

Sorry Obama didn't give tax breaks corporations didn't need to corporations like Trump did. What do we have to give them next? And who will pay the taxes they no longer pay? Oh yea YOU!

Corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers pay their taxes as an added cost of doing business. Giving corporations a 'tax' break u;timately gives consumers lower prices on corporate goods. Competition will see to that.

 

[AntonToo]

Come on sealy plenty of lefty’s crying in this thread. When Obama was in office, the extreme right cried when good happened and now the extreme left is crying when good happens. Party over America is a sad reality.

Who’s crying? All I see are folks on the left making fun of folks on the right for trashing Obama’s good numbers as phony; where now suddenly, for some reason, those same numbers are real.

Oh, the ol’ “they did it first” mentality. So you are just trolling, thanks for letting me know you aren’t serious.

Since when is highlighting rightie hypocrisy, “trolling?”

And who’s on the left here who’s not highlighting it? You never did answer that question....

Hey Papa, notice this isn't a thread started by a lefty? When you find us in a thread started by a lefty claiming things aren't going well right now, let us know. Because that's what righties did all 8 years of Obama even though he had like 80 straight months of job growth.

Sorry Obama didn't give tax breaks corporations didn't need to corporations like Trump did. What do we have to give them next? And who will pay the taxes they no longer pay? Oh yea YOU!

Corporations don't pay taxes.

Yes they do, please shut up.

Thats like me saying consumers don't pay taxes, they just buy less shit from corporations.

Apple is going to save billions from these tax-cuts, but guess what, they will still charge every single penny they think they can squeeze out for their phones.

 

[Faun]

Funny how when jobs created last August took a dive because of the Texas hurricanes the left said it was all Trumps fault.

313,000 jobs gained 6 months later has nothing to do with Trump.

The left are stuck on stupid and are foaming at the mouth with their hate.

Those numbers are fake

Fat Donnie told us so

He embellishes the truth. U-6 numbers are not representative of unemployment related to those seeking jobs. U-3 numbers are. Both are valid stats depending on their use.

You're too ******* delirious.

When the U-3 unemployment rate was just over five percent, trump said he heard it could be over 40%. You call that "embellishing the truth."

I quote Trump saying that -- and you call me a liar.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Obabble's fake recovery is the worst in modern history.

Still avoiding my post?

Here it is again... let’s see if you can address it this time...

WTF are you smoking? Who set the bar at 300,000K? 299,999K is “sub-par job growth” in you alternative universe?

Not to mention, Trump’s hit the 300K mark in 7.6% of his term.​

Here you go: Reagan created enough jobs to keep every addition to the Civilian Population fully employed. Obabble employed only half. That's the difference between Pro Growth vs. Pro Government Control policies, bub.

View attachment 181551

LOL

Now you’re comparing the labor force participation rate which is driven by demographics? That’s almost as rightarded as you’re idiotic claim that anything less than 300,000 jobs gained in a month is “sub par job growth.”

Reagan’s labor force was boosted by the womens’ lib movement. Obama’s was dinged by aging baby boomers. Neither president had anything to do with those factors. And Obama’s Recession was much deeper than Reagan’s and the economy wasn’t structurally broken in the 80’s like it was when Bush left office.

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

 

[Faun]

Still avoiding my post?

Here it is again... let’s see if you can address it this time...

WTF are you smoking? Who set the bar at 300,000K? 299,999K is “sub-par job growth” in you alternative universe?

Not to mention, Trump’s hit the 300K mark in 7.6% of his term.​

Here you go: Reagan created enough jobs to keep every addition to the Civilian Population fully employed. Obabble employed only half. That's the difference between Pro Growth vs. Pro Government Control policies, bub.

View attachment 181551

LOL

Now you’re comparing the labor force participation rate which is driven by demographics? That’s almost as rightarded as you’re idiotic claim that anything less than 300,000 jobs gained in a month is “sub par job growth.”

Reagan’s labor force was boosted by the womens’ lib movement. Obama’s was dinged by aging baby boomers. Neither president had anything to do with those factors. And Obama’s Recession was much deeper than Reagan’s and the economy wasn’t structurally broken in the 80’s like it was when Bush left office.

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Here you go: Reagan created enough jobs to keep every addition to the Civilian Population fully employed. Obabble employed only half. That's the difference between Pro Growth vs. Pro Government Control policies, bub.

View attachment 181551

LOL

Now you’re comparing the labor force participation rate which is driven by demographics? That’s almost as rightarded as you’re idiotic claim that anything less than 300,000 jobs gained in a month is “sub par job growth.”

Reagan’s labor force was boosted by the womens’ lib movement. Obama’s was dinged by aging baby boomers. Neither president had anything to do with those factors. And Obama’s Recession was much deeper than Reagan’s and the economy wasn’t structurally broken in the 80’s like it was when Bush left office.

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

Yes, a 140% increase is a good sign.
Of a failed economy.

 

[Faun]

LOL

Now you’re comparing the labor force participation rate which is driven by demographics? That’s almost as rightarded as you’re idiotic claim that anything less than 300,000 jobs gained in a month is “sub par job growth.”

Reagan’s labor force was boosted by the womens’ lib movement. Obama’s was dinged by aging baby boomers. Neither president had anything to do with those factors. And Obama’s Recession was much deeper than Reagan’s and the economy wasn’t structurally broken in the 80’s like it was when Bush left office.

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

Yes, a 140% increase is a good sign.
Of a failed economy.

Holyfuckingshit!

You idiots get dumber by the day. That's the level of increase since baby boomers began hitting age 62. Which, by the way, is still at the same level. According to you, we are currently in a failed economy.

Now do you see why so many folks here laugh at you?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Ricky LIbtardo, post: 19469665

Trump hitting it out of the park.

Not much of a feat considering what was happening for six years before Trumpo took office: "The U.S. added 2.2 million jobs in 2016, on top of 2.7 million jobs gained in 2015, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fact, there has been growth of at least 2 million jobs in each of President Obama’s last six years in office, and there have been 75 consecutive months of jobs growth, a modern-day record."

Here's What Really Happened to Jobs During the Obama Years

Trumpo is not close to beating or keeping up with Obama's record breaking jobs creation longevity streak.

It seems you Trumpotards are spiking the football before reaching the goal line.

Around 2.1 million jobs were created during Trumpo's first year which was a noticeable drop from the 2.2 million that were added during Obama's final year.

Or we can compare Trumpo's first seven months jobs record from February 2017 through August where 1,189,000 jobs were added.

But king bullshitter Trumpo is a loser since Obama created about 1,375,000 jobs during his last seven months in office.

Numbers just don't lie. There is not much here for Trumpotards to be celebrating at this time unless they will admit that Obama's jobs creation record is quite a 'hit out of the park' remarkable considering his starting point was mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression in terms of jobs lost. Trumpo started with a positive growth economy wherein unemployment was at 4.7 percent.

Point being thus far / Obama hit it out of the park farther and more often than Trumpo will ever do.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Weatherman2020, post: 19493679

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

Yes, a 140% increase is a good sign.
Of a failed economy.

We can see here how deplorable's collective lemmingishly limited minds fail to function on a logical, scientific fact-driven basis. Able to produce only false logic

Question: Is Obama responsible for Baby Boomers retiring?

Only Logical Answer: No.

Hiwever our resident deplorable answers indirectly: "Yes, a 140% increase (Baby Boomer's retiring) is a good sign of a failed economy."

There is no logical factual/scientific relationship linking Obama being held responsibilities for the historic and sociological development
leading to the 140% increase in baby boomer retirements tltat began when he was president.

So our resident deplorable has written another lie about Obama cappped with an opinion founded in ignorance that the start of a 140 percent increase in Baby Booner retirements is a "good sign of a failed economy."

Why is that comment ignorant you may ask. It is ignorant because rightwing Trumpotards are now claiming that their whitish orange hero is responsible for the greatest economy that ever existed although the Bsby Boomer generation has not quit retirement and returned to the labor force.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Meathead, post: 19469723

The "Age of Obama" is over. You need to get over it too.

But his record on job growth was better than Trumpo's thus far. Facts matter and they don't evaporate. A nuisance to Trumpotards for sure. Pesky facts.

 

[boedicca]

Here you go: Reagan created enough jobs to keep every addition to the Civilian Population fully employed. Obabble employed only half. That's the difference between Pro Growth vs. Pro Government Control policies, bub.

View attachment 181551

LOL

Now you’re comparing the labor force participation rate which is driven by demographics? That’s almost as rightarded as you’re idiotic claim that anything less than 300,000 jobs gained in a month is “sub par job growth.”

Reagan’s labor force was boosted by the womens’ lib movement. Obama’s was dinged by aging baby boomers. Neither president had anything to do with those factors. And Obama’s Recession was much deeper than Reagan’s and the economy wasn’t structurally broken in the 80’s like it was when Bush left office.

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

I have debunked this Demographix Mix Ad Nauseum.

In RealityLand, older folks have increased Labor Force Participation Rates. The drop is in the younger cohorts.

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

 

[boedicca]

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

Yes, a 140% increase is a good sign.
Of a failed economy.

Holyfuckingshit!

You idiots get dumber by the day. That's the level of increase since baby boomers began hitting age 62. Which, by the way, is still at the same level. According to you, we are currently in a failed economy.

Now do you see why so many folks here laugh at you?

Again: Older people are Working More; Younger people are working less.

That's what Obamanomics did.

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

 

[asaratis]

Who’s crying? All I see are folks on the left making fun of folks on the right for trashing Obama’s good numbers as phony; where now suddenly, for some reason, those same numbers are real.

Oh, the ol’ “they did it first” mentality. So you are just trolling, thanks for letting me know you aren’t serious.

Since when is highlighting rightie hypocrisy, “trolling?”

And who’s on the left here who’s not highlighting it? You never did answer that question....

Hey Papa, notice this isn't a thread started by a lefty? When you find us in a thread started by a lefty claiming things aren't going well right now, let us know. Because that's what righties did all 8 years of Obama even though he had like 80 straight months of job growth.

Sorry Obama didn't give tax breaks corporations didn't need to corporations like Trump did. What do we have to give them next? And who will pay the taxes they no longer pay? Oh yea YOU!

Corporations don't pay taxes.

Yes they do, please shut up.

Thats like me saying consumers don't pay taxes, they just buy less shit from corporations.

Apple is going to save billions from these tax-cuts, but guess what, they will still charge every single penny they think they can squeeze out for their phones.

No, they don't. Freedom of speech is hell when you're wrong. Your example SUCKS!

Businesses don’t pay taxes; consumers do || Business Observer | Tampa Bay, Bradenton, Sarasota, Fort Myers, Naples

List of Tax Reform Good News

 

[asaratis]

Funny how when jobs created last August took a dive because of the Texas hurricanes the left said it was all Trumps fault.

313,000 jobs gained 6 months later has nothing to do with Trump.

The left are stuck on stupid and are foaming at the mouth with their hate.

Those numbers are fake

Fat Donnie told us so

He embellishes the truth. U-6 numbers are not representative of unemployment related to those seeking jobs. U-3 numbers are. Both are valid stats depending on their use.

You're too ******* delirious.

When the U-3 unemployment rate was just over five percent, trump said he heard it could be over 40%. You call that "embellishing the truth."

I quote Trump saying that -- and you call me a liar.

You didn't claim in that post to be quoting Trump.

Trump lied. You repeated his lie. You are a known liar!

Your cute little gifs mean nothing.

 

[AntonToo]

Oh, the ol’ “they did it first” mentality. So you are just trolling, thanks for letting me know you aren’t serious.

Since when is highlighting rightie hypocrisy, “trolling?”

And who’s on the left here who’s not highlighting it? You never did answer that question....

Hey Papa, notice this isn't a thread started by a lefty? When you find us in a thread started by a lefty claiming things aren't going well right now, let us know. Because that's what righties did all 8 years of Obama even though he had like 80 straight months of job growth.

Sorry Obama didn't give tax breaks corporations didn't need to corporations like Trump did. What do we have to give them next? And who will pay the taxes they no longer pay? Oh yea YOU!

Corporations don't pay taxes.

Yes they do, please shut up.

Thats like me saying consumers don't pay taxes, they just buy less shit from corporations.

Apple is going to save billions from these tax-cuts, but guess what, they will still charge every single penny they think they can squeeze out for their phones.

No, they don't. Freedom of speech is hell when you're wrong. Your example SUCKS!

Your ignorance of how bussiness works sucks.

Apple is not going to lower the price of iphones it sells to you with a $200 margin just because it pocketed a sweet tax-cut.

 

[asaratis]

Since when is highlighting rightie hypocrisy, “trolling?”

And who’s on the left here who’s not highlighting it? You never did answer that question....

Hey Papa, notice this isn't a thread started by a lefty? When you find us in a thread started by a lefty claiming things aren't going well right now, let us know. Because that's what righties did all 8 years of Obama even though he had like 80 straight months of job growth.

Sorry Obama didn't give tax breaks corporations didn't need to corporations like Trump did. What do we have to give them next? And who will pay the taxes they no longer pay? Oh yea YOU!

Corporations don't pay taxes.

Yes they do, please shut up.

Thats like me saying consumers don't pay taxes, they just buy less shit from corporations.

Apple is going to save billions from these tax-cuts, but guess what, they will still charge every single penny they think they can squeeze out for their phones.

No, they don't. Freedom of speech is hell when you're wrong. Your example SUCKS!

Your ignorance of how bussiness works sucks.

Apple is not going to lower the price of iphones it sells to you with a $200 margin just because it pocketed a sweet tax-cut.

Apple has a monopoly on Iphone technology. Samsung and other Android products are already less expensive and Apple still makes billions on every new model.

The lowering of prices and the raising of wages is not automatic. Many greedy corporate boards will simply buy back their own stock.