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

[bedowin62]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Hey dumb ass, that Montana link is what YOU gave for the source of your 3% lie. It was YOU who was applying it to the whole country.

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

now you self-deceiving idiot. the whole article wasn't about Montana; just that paragraph

what a clown you are; making a fool of yourself, and you have no sense of shame

 

[bedowin62]

Record number of Americans on disability would make up ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../record-number-am...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
May 30, 2013 - Newly released data by the Social Security Administration shows that 10978040 Americans now are receiving disability benefits. What the ...

Holyfuckingshit!

Do you ever stop posting bullshit? That number is counting children of disabled folks... many of whom are too young to be counted in the 'not in labor force' anyway and have no impact on it.



Of the numbers referred to in May/2013 in that article, almost 2 Million of the people collecting disability benefits are children under 18 of disabled folks. The BLS doesn't factor anyone under 16 in the labor force participation rate.

What a gullible dumbfuck you are, eh?

\
um no leftard; because i never said that. nice straw man though; typical work of a coward.
the fact that 2 million of the increase in people on disability under obama isnt what i claimed to be the cause of the drop in labor force participation; AND it doesn account for the MASSIVE increase in people on disability under obama. so you misrepresent the issue on both counts. like i said typical obfuscating coward

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The growth in SS retiree benefits also corresponds to the boomer curve and is substantially larger than any growth in disability. In fact, W had a million more people receive disability during his time than Obama has.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

 

[bedowin62]

The growth in SS retiree benefits also corresponds to the boomer curve and is substantially larger than any growth in disability. In fact, W had a million more people receive disability during his time than Obama has.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

the number of people collecting a federal disability is up at least 20% since obama got in office; according to very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG

you're lying leftard

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The growth in SS retiree benefits also corresponds to the boomer curve and is substantially larger than any growth in disability. In fact, W had a million more people receive disability during his time than Obama has.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

the number of people collecting a federal disability is up at least 20% since obama got in office; according to very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG

you're lying leftard

Up 20%( more like 15%) under Obama but substantially less than the 30 some % increase under Bush.

Look at my link dummy.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

 

[sealybobo]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Hey dumb ass, that Montana link is what YOU gave for the source of your 3% lie. It was YOU who was applying it to the whole country.

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

Where it's allowed, the ACA is working. The GOP hate it. Once it is working everywhere they'll give credit to Romney.

 

[edthecynic]

how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?

your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%

Actually, the WHOLE 2012 quote says that only 15% of the dropouts are of prime working age. It then makes a reference to what the future will show one way or the other. And so far the Barclays economists ARE being proven right, there has been no increase in LPR or unemployment in the years following the article!

From the source you reference:

"According to the report, just a third of the drop in labor force participation came from those who still wanted a job—and only 15% of those folks are of prime working age, 25 to 54. So, the economists see “the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote.

This would be good for the bearish holdouts on the economic recovery.

Those skeptics say the dropping unemployment rate mostly is from a drop in able-bodied people quitting the job search (and lowering labor force participation). And, they say, when the economy does pick back up, those folks will want back in. So, when they re-enter, the falling unemployment becomes the rising unemployment rate.

But if the Barclays economists are right, and the labor-force participation decrease is from baby boomers retiring, then we won’t see a large increase in labor force participation later. Or a rise in the unemployment rate."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The biggest problem with the economy is still jobs and especially wages. There needs to be some upward movement accross the board on wages. I place this problem solely at the feet of the " job creators" who have seen all of the gains and have all of the control to change this dynamic. Look at the difference in percentage of GDP each is. Obviously higher wages are better for growth than higher corporate profits are.

 

[bedowin62]

that's funny; because left-wing nutjobs are INSISTING all these jobs have been created in obama's time in office. so what's with the ranting bout "job creators"??

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

The growth in SS retiree benefits also corresponds to the boomer curve and is substantially larger than any growth in disability. In fact, W had a million more people receive disability during his time than Obama has.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

the number of people collecting a federal disability is up at least 20% since obama got in office; according to very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG

you're lying leftard

Up 20%( more like 15%) under Obama but substantially less than the 30 some % increase under Bush.

Look at my link dummy.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

obama has a year and a half left leftard

try again

 

[bedowin62]

how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?

your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%

Actually, the WHOLE 2012 quote says that only 15% of the dropouts are of prime working age. It then makes a reference to what the future will show one way or the other. And so far the Barclays economists ARE being proven right, there has been no increase in LPR or unemployment in the years following the article!

From the source you reference:

"According to the report, just a third of the drop in labor force participation came from those who still wanted a job—and only 15% of those folks are of prime working age, 25 to 54. So, the economists see “the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote.

This would be good for the bearish holdouts on the economic recovery.

Those skeptics say the dropping unemployment rate mostly is from a drop in able-bodied people quitting the job search (and lowering labor force participation). And, they say, when the economy does pick back up, those folks will want back in. So, when they re-enter, the falling unemployment becomes the rising unemployment rate.

But if the Barclays economists are right, and the labor-force participation decrease is from baby boomers retiring, then we won’t see a large increase in labor force participation later. Or a rise in the unemployment rate."

if you were paying attention you would have known that wasnt my source it was Faun's. i quoted the part he left out. i provided several other sources that use statistics like these to make the opposite argument; that the big jump in the LFPR cant be tied to the retiring of Baby Boomers, not even most of the rise

 

[bedowin62]

President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
(CNSNews.com) - In the fourteen fiscal years that preceded President Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the tax receipts coming into the federal government’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund exceeded the benefits paid out, and the trust fund ran a surplus.
In each of the five fiscal years Obama has served as president, the trust fund has run a deficit as the number of people receiving disability benefits has surged. The Disability Insurance Trust Fund has never before run five straight years of deficits.

 

[bedowin62]

In the 57 fiscal years that the federal disability program has operated, it has run deficits in only 11 years---with five of those years coming under Obama. Prior to the last five fiscal years, the longest run of deficits in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund was the four-year span from fiscal 1962 trough fiscal 1965, when John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were president.

 

[bedowin62]

When President Obama took office in January 2009--which was the fourth month of fiscal 2009--there were 7,442,377 workers on disability, according to the Social Security Administration. As of October 2013, there was a record 8,936,932. That means the number of people on disability has increased by 1,494,555 while Obama has been in office--a jump of 20 percent.
In addition to the 8,936,932 workers collecting disability in October, there were also 157,676 spouses of disabled workers who collected additional benefits, and 1,871,127 children of disabled workers who collected benefits.
All told, 10,965,735 people collected federal disability benefits in October.
At the end of fiscal 2008, there was a net balance of $216.239 billion in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—meaning the Treasury owed $216.239 billion in IOUs to the trust fund for surplus disability insurance tax receipts it had taken in previous years and used for other government expenses.

 

[bedowin62]

At the end of fiscal 2013, the net balance in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund had dropped to $100.486—a decline of $115.753 billion.
That $115.753 billion, the cumulative five year deficit of the disability insurance program, equals the amount of money the Treasury had to borrow from other sources to pay disability benefits during that time.
From the last day of January 2009 through the last day of September 2013, the total debt of the federal government climbed from $10,632,005,246,736.97 to $16,738,183,526,697.32—an increase of $6,106,178,279,960.35.
That equaled approximately $53,091 in additional debt for each of the 115,013,000 households that the Census Bureau now estimates there are in the United States.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

that's funny; because left-wing nutjobs are INSISTING all these jobs have been created in obama's time in office. so what's with the ranting bout "job creators"??

libs are losers who lie to themselves

Don't believe your lying eyes? That graph doesn't lie. The president doesn't control wages. The " job creators" do. The growth in profits show that regulation clearly is not hindering the ability of business to earn.
Who is to blame in your estimation?

 

[bedowin62]

Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.
About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.




but the Left wants to know where this bad economy is????

of course that is the reason the Left keeps bringing up bush here; THEY WANT TO TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH. insisting on one hand that things are better off under obama then they were under Bush, and not just bush's last 2 years, in the face of evidence that says different

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The growth in SS retiree benefits also corresponds to the boomer curve and is substantially larger than any growth in disability. In fact, W had a million more people receive disability during his time than Obama has.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

the number of people collecting a federal disability is up at least 20% since obama got in office; according to very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG

you're lying leftard

Up 20%( more like 15%) under Obama but substantially less than the 30 some % increase under Bush.

Look at my link dummy.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

obama has a year and a half left leftard

try again

Do you suppose it will rise to W levels by then? Afraid not.

 

[bedowin62]

The growth in SS retiree benefits also corresponds to the boomer curve and is substantially larger than any growth in disability. In fact, W had a million more people receive disability during his time than Obama has.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

the number of people collecting a federal disability is up at least 20% since obama got in office; according to very obama-friendly FACTCHECK.ORG

you're lying leftard

Up 20%( more like 15%) under Obama but substantially less than the 30 some % increase under Bush.

Look at my link dummy.

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

obama has a year and a half left leftard

try again

Do you suppose it will rise to W levels by then? Afraid not.

i'm afrais so; most economic indicators are worse under obama leftard: poverty level, income inequality, labor market participation, ...etc

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When President Obama took office in January 2009--which was the fourth month of fiscal 2009--there were 7,442,377 workers on disability, according to the Social Security Administration. As of October 2013, there was a record 8,936,932. That means the number of people on disability has increased by 1,494,555 while Obama has been in office--a jump of 20 percent.
In addition to the 8,936,932 workers collecting disability in October, there were also 157,676 spouses of disabled workers who collected additional benefits, and 1,871,127 children of disabled workers who collected benefits.
All told, 10,965,735 people collected federal disability benefits in October.
At the end of fiscal 2008, there was a net balance of $216.239 billion in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—meaning the Treasury owed $216.239 billion in IOUs to the trust fund for surplus disability insurance tax receipts it had taken in previous years and used for other government expenses.

Nice link and still a substantially smaller increase than W.