58 straight months of jobs growth, ACA working great where allowed to, where is this bad economy?

[edthecynic]

record numbers are on disability under Obama
this loser left-wing nutjob o-bot is actually tring to brag that nubers are slightly down in Obama's recent years, fro RECORD HIGHS under him
record numbers are on some kind of disability

One more thing, the number of NEW disability awards for the last 2 years are LESS than Bush's last year!

 

[francoHFW]

RW idiocy and brainwashed ADD running rampant...but thanks for the corrupt world depression and 6 years of mindless obstruction, AND disastrous shutdown threats until a year and a half ago. You and your pander to the greedy idiot rich party is a deluded disgrace...

 

[Faun]

you know what's hysterical? I haven't been on this site since yesterday afternoon, yet here is this idiot loser^^^^^ desperately trying to dispel the FACTS I put up here yesterday

lmao


record numbers are on disability under Obama
this loser left-wing nutjob o-bot is actually tring to brag that nubers are slightly down in Obama's recent years, fro RECORD HIGHS under him
record numbers are on some kind of disability NOT related to military service unde robama
he's EXPANDED THE WELFARE STATE

AND THAT IS WHY LABOR MARKET PARTICIPATION IS AT A 40-YEAR LOW
and as I repeatedle showed IT ISNT BECAUSE OF RETIRING BABY BOOMERS; only about 3% is

libs are laughable losers who lie to themselves

Well if nothing else, you reaffirm the established fact that conservatives are batshit insane; and for that, I thank you for posting such ridiculous tripe.

But while you idiotically attribute much of drop in the LFPR to folks going on to disability; but only "3%" to retiring baby boomers, the actual numbers *****-slap you silly...

From the end of 2008 through the end of 2014, there has been an increase of people on disability by about 1.5 million...



... meanwhile, the number of retired people during that same period has increased by almost 7 million...



More than 4 and a half times as many people are retired under Obama than those on disability, and here you are blaming people on disability far more than those who retire for the drop in the labor force participation rate.



Do you understand now why so many posters here laugh at you?

 

[bedowin62]

RW idiocy and brainwashed ADD running rampant...but thanks for the corrupt world depression and 6 years of mindless obstruction, AND disastrous shutdown threats until a year and a half ago. You and your pander to the greedy idiot rich party is a deluded disgrace...

you're too stupid to realize every whine about the last guy makes you and your Messiah look like the weak and inept pussies you are.

forward???

 

[bedowin62]

you know what's hysterical? I haven't been on this site since yesterday afternoon, yet here is this idiot loser^^^^^ desperately trying to dispel the FACTS I put up here yesterday

lmao


record numbers are on disability under Obama
this loser left-wing nutjob o-bot is actually tring to brag that nubers are slightly down in Obama's recent years, fro RECORD HIGHS under him
record numbers are on some kind of disability NOT related to military service unde robama
he's EXPANDED THE WELFARE STATE

AND THAT IS WHY LABOR MARKET PARTICIPATION IS AT A 40-YEAR LOW
and as I repeatedle showed IT ISNT BECAUSE OF RETIRING BABY BOOMERS; only about 3% is

libs are laughable losers who lie to themselves

Well if nothing else, you reaffirm the established fact that conservatives are batshit insane; and for that, I thank you for posting such ridiculous tripe.

But while you idiotically attribute much of drop in the LFPR to folks going on to disability; but only "3%" to retiring baby boomers, the actual numbers *****-slap you silly...

From the end of 2008 through the end of 2014, there has been an increase of people on disability by about 1.5 million...



... meanwhile, the number of retired people during that same period has increased by almost 7 million...



More than 4 and a half times as many people are retired under Obama than those on disability, and here you are blaming people on disability far more than those who retire for the drop in the labor force participation rate.



Do you understand now why so many posters here laugh at you?

nobody here takes you seriously; record numbers are on disability under obama. the 40-year low in the Labor Market Participation rate isnt because of retiring Baby Boomers, as anybody can tell if you have a brain and a shred of honesty. one article has that as being about 3% of the cause of the low rate of labor market participation

you're just a clown watching it all fall apart

 

[bedowin62]

On one side are those who take the view that what is being observed are actually Baby Boomers leaving the workforce and retiring, such as minnpost.com’s Erik Hare, writing in a piece, “Decline in labor force driven by retirement, not discouragement.”
Hare calls it a “lie” that “this is the result of people giving up looking for work, a sign that the ‘recovery’ is weak.” Instead, Hare points to a Philadelphia Federal Reserve study on the topic that takes a narrow look at Bureau nonparticipation data, concluding that retirements beginning in 2010 began to play a role in driving down the participation rate.
The trouble with the study is that labor participation has been declining a lot longer than since 2010. In fact, it peaked in 1997 at 67.1 percent, and has dropped annually ever since. As the study notes, “retirement had not played much of a role until around 2010.” By then, the rate had already dropped 2.4 percent.
Meaning, retirement cannot be thought to have played much of a role in the participation rates up until that point, and may only be tangentially affecting it now.

 

[bedowin62]

So, does older Americans working longer, younger people failing to enter the labor force, and the middle-aged dropping out account for the decrease in labor force participation?
Yes on all counts, the ALG study shows.
Specifically, 16-24 year olds failing to enter the labor force alone took 1.29 percent off the overall labor force participation rate. 25-54 year olds took a whopping 5.24 percent off the rate.
Meanwhile, these losses were offset by 55-64 year olds adding 2.39 percent back to the rate, and 65 years old and above adding another 1.13 percent.
By far the biggest contributors to the drop in participation were:

1. that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and
2. 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

 

[bedowin62]

By far the biggest contributors to the drop in participation were:

1. that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and
2. 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

In fact, if older Americans were not working longer — in the process adding 2.79 million to the civilian labor force — participation would be even lower than it already is at about 61.7 percent, instead of the 62.8 percent rate reported.

 

[bedowin62]

you leave left-wing nujobs all alone for a few hours and they go all full retard on you!

 

[francoHFW]

Bed baffled by bs...bfd.

 

[Faun]

RW idiocy and brainwashed ADD running rampant...but thanks for the corrupt world depression and 6 years of mindless obstruction, AND disastrous shutdown threats until a year and a half ago. You and your pander to the greedy idiot rich party is a deluded disgrace...

you're too stupid to realize every whine about the last guy makes you and your Messiah look like the weak and inept pussies you are.

forward???

Spits the forum retard who just yesterday, was whining about Clinton.

 

[francoHFW]

RW idiocy and brainwashed ADD running rampant...but thanks for the corrupt world depression and 6 years of mindless obstruction, AND disastrous shutdown threats until a year and a half ago. You and your pander to the greedy idiot rich party is a deluded disgrace...

you're too stupid to realize every whine about the last guy makes you and your Messiah look like the weak and inept pussies you are.

forward???

Why anyone would listen to Pub propaganda is beyond the rest of the world, dupe. Have a meltdown over bs disabilty fear mongering in the face of recovery why don't you...

 

[francoHFW]

Oh, and ACA rates are SKYROCKETING, up to plus and minus 15%!!!!

 

[Faun]

you know what's hysterical? I haven't been on this site since yesterday afternoon, yet here is this idiot loser^^^^^ desperately trying to dispel the FACTS I put up here yesterday

lmao


record numbers are on disability under Obama
this loser left-wing nutjob o-bot is actually tring to brag that nubers are slightly down in Obama's recent years, fro RECORD HIGHS under him
record numbers are on some kind of disability NOT related to military service unde robama
he's EXPANDED THE WELFARE STATE

AND THAT IS WHY LABOR MARKET PARTICIPATION IS AT A 40-YEAR LOW
and as I repeatedle showed IT ISNT BECAUSE OF RETIRING BABY BOOMERS; only about 3% is

libs are laughable losers who lie to themselves

Well if nothing else, you reaffirm the established fact that conservatives are batshit insane; and for that, I thank you for posting such ridiculous tripe.

But while you idiotically attribute much of drop in the LFPR to folks going on to disability; but only "3%" to retiring baby boomers, the actual numbers *****-slap you silly...

From the end of 2008 through the end of 2014, there has been an increase of people on disability by about 1.5 million...



... meanwhile, the number of retired people during that same period has increased by almost 7 million...



More than 4 and a half times as many people are retired under Obama than those on disability, and here you are blaming people on disability far more than those who retire for the drop in the labor force participation rate.



Do you understand now why so many posters here laugh at you?

nobody here takes you seriously; record numbers are on disability under obama. the 40-year low in the Labor Market Participation rate isnt because of retiring Baby Boomers, as anybody can tell if you have a brain and a shred of honesty. one article has that as being about 3% of the cause of the low rate of labor market participation

you're just a clown watching it all fall apart

Who cares if you're too stupid to comprehend the charts I posted?

You're a conservative -- nobody expects you to understand numbers.

But I posted those charts to prove just how rightarded you are and your pathetically weak response confirms it.

Thanks again!

 

[francoHFW]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[bedowin62]

you know what's hysterical? I haven't been on this site since yesterday afternoon, yet here is this idiot loser^^^^^ desperately trying to dispel the FACTS I put up here yesterday

lmao


record numbers are on disability under Obama
this loser left-wing nutjob o-bot is actually tring to brag that nubers are slightly down in Obama's recent years, fro RECORD HIGHS under him
record numbers are on some kind of disability NOT related to military service unde robama
he's EXPANDED THE WELFARE STATE

AND THAT IS WHY LABOR MARKET PARTICIPATION IS AT A 40-YEAR LOW
and as I repeatedle showed IT ISNT BECAUSE OF RETIRING BABY BOOMERS; only about 3% is

libs are laughable losers who lie to themselves

Well if nothing else, you reaffirm the established fact that conservatives are batshit insane; and for that, I thank you for posting such ridiculous tripe.

But while you idiotically attribute much of drop in the LFPR to folks going on to disability; but only "3%" to retiring baby boomers, the actual numbers *****-slap you silly...

From the end of 2008 through the end of 2014, there has been an increase of people on disability by about 1.5 million...



... meanwhile, the number of retired people during that same period has increased by almost 7 million...



More than 4 and a half times as many people are retired under Obama than those on disability, and here you are blaming people on disability far more than those who retire for the drop in the labor force participation rate.



Do you understand now why so many posters here laugh at you?

nobody here takes you seriously; record numbers are on disability under obama. the 40-year low in the Labor Market Participation rate isnt because of retiring Baby Boomers, as anybody can tell if you have a brain and a shred of honesty. one article has that as being about 3% of the cause of the low rate of labor market participation

you're just a clown watching it all fall apart

Who cares if you're too stupid to comprehend the charts I posted?

You're a conservative -- nobody expects you to understand numbers.

But I posted those charts to prove just how rightarded you are and your pathetically weak response confirms it.

Thanks again!

YAWN
your charts are meaningless; because you're LYING TO YOURSELF
so typical of a loser lefty to not man up and admit he's wrong

not my fault you arent enough of a man to accept an article that breaks down your GRAPH and gives it real meaning and context

 

[bedowin62]

just a shallow little baby pointing to a graph and crying that others must accept your interpretation of it

 

[bedowin62]

you dont have the mental capacity or the discipline, let alone the intellectual honesty, to accept what your graph is saying. you just hope to throw shit out there then cry like a baby that others dont understand it

 

[bedowin62]

By far the biggest contributors to the drop in participation were:

1. that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and
2. 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

In fact, if older Americans were not working longer — in the process adding 2.79 million to the civilian labor force — participation would be even lower than it already is at about 61.7 percent, instead of the 62.8 percent rate reported.

here it is in words dummy. have somebody explain it to you

 

[bedowin62]

So, does older Americans working longer, younger people failing to enter the labor force, and the middle-aged dropping out account for the decrease in labor force participation?
Yes on all counts, the ALG study shows.
Specifically, 16-24 year olds failing to enter the labor force alone took 1.29 percent off the overall labor force participation rate. 25-54 year olds took a whopping 5.24 percent off the rate.
Meanwhile, these losses were offset by 55-64 year olds adding 2.39 percent back to the rate, and 65 years old and above adding another 1.13 percent.
By far the biggest contributors to the drop in participation were:

1. that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and
2. 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

In fact, if older Americans were not working longer — in the process adding 2.79 million to the civilian labor force — participation would be even lower than it already is at about 61.7 percent, instead of the 62.8 percent rate reported.