Another Good Month On The Jobs Front...unemployment Drops To 5.9%

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you saying I'm using cooked numbers but you're not?

He's desperately trying to divert attention away from good news. It's what the far right mouth-breathers do.

What diversion puppy in a lost fight?

You're as demented as they come.

No I'm as correct as they come you're dismissed.

Nope, I had it right, you're demented. If you were correct, you'd be able to explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. So you feign outrage and pretend like you don't want to answer when the stark reality is -- you can't answer.

Oh, and by the way ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

Just keep telling yourself that, doesn't matter it's not true.

 

[edthecynic]

Because of Bush's 2 wars + his surge playing havoc with the demographic of the non institutional population.

So while the number of deployed troops was going up, the participation rate remained steady. While the number of deployed troops decreased before the surge, the participation rate remained steady.

So clearly the reason the participation rate remained stead is because of troop deployments.

You are an idiot.

More like, the LPR was falling until Bush started his wars and remained steady until the surge when it improved slightly and then steadily declined as the troops have gradually come home.

So you are suggesting that the majority, if not all, of the troops that come home, have remained unemployed?

Do you have any evidence to support that theory? Other than correlation equals causation....

Because... honestly, having worked with dozens of companies, companies LOVE to hire military personnel. If there is any fast-track to employment, it's having a military record on your resume.

I am suggesting no such thing, not even remotely!!!!!

Active military are not counted as part of the noninstitutional civilian population, which is the denominator in the calculation of the LPR, so the more military on active duty, the smaller the denominator and the higher the LPR. It is another example of how demographics effects the LPR independent of economic conditions, which is why the LPR is such a lousy economic indicator!!!!

But here's my problem.....

You are thus assuming that there was a significant increase in active duty military personnel. Significant enough to effect the civilian population numbers, and thus increase the LPR.

I don't see that as being true. Do you have evidence that's true?

Because everything that I see suggests the opposite. In raw numbers, active duty was lower in the 2003, than it had been in decades.

As a percentage of the population, military enrollment is lower than ever before.

Both would seem to indicate that the number of active duty troops, being at the lowest levels in American history, relative to the population, that we would expect the lowest labor participation rates in US history throughout the 00s. Instead, it's not nearly that bad.

So on what bases, what empirical evidence do you have of your claim?

But you are not counting the nearly 200,000 National Guard and reserves who made up over 40% of the active duty military in Iraq and over 50% in Afghanistan. That is more than enough to keep the LPR from falling for the few years it was holding steady during the Bush Regime.

 

[edthecynic]

What's a Cater economy, you big dummy? You need help, seriously.

What's a carter economy?
Gas rationing long lines at the pump 7.5% unemployment rate Inflation of 15% Misery index of 24.5% The closest to Carter is obama at 14.9% But that is what an cater economy looks like.

How about that Bush economy? LOL! He took Clinton's good economy and flushed it down a commode. When he left office, we were losing approximately 800,000 jobs a month.

And clinton took money from Social Security to cover the budget so idiots like you would be easily fooled.

Weird, you mean Ronnie increasing SS taxes by 60% would cause Clinton's surpluses? Why did Ronnie triple the debt then?


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Clinton surplus is like you having a brain all a myth

No more mythical than Bush's $160 billion deficit for fiscal 2007.

 

[pinqy]

Ooooh! I know the answer! Pick me!

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So ******* be it.

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

You think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of employed and you're trying to say I'm wrong. Too funny.

Why wouldn't it?

Because the Labor Force is Employed PLUS Unemployed, not just employed.
And the Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a PERCENT of the Population.
You keep citing a percent and claiming it's the number.

yeah I know yada yada yada from you it's all bull shit. Do you work for the department of labor? Are you job scare and need to feed the lie?[/QUOTE]

 

[Andylusion]

So while the number of deployed troops was going up, the participation rate remained steady. While the number of deployed troops decreased before the surge, the participation rate remained steady.

So clearly the reason the participation rate remained stead is because of troop deployments.

You are an idiot.

More like, the LPR was falling until Bush started his wars and remained steady until the surge when it improved slightly and then steadily declined as the troops have gradually come home.

So you are suggesting that the majority, if not all, of the troops that come home, have remained unemployed?

Do you have any evidence to support that theory? Other than correlation equals causation....

Because... honestly, having worked with dozens of companies, companies LOVE to hire military personnel. If there is any fast-track to employment, it's having a military record on your resume.

I am suggesting no such thing, not even remotely!!!!!

Active military are not counted as part of the noninstitutional civilian population, which is the denominator in the calculation of the LPR, so the more military on active duty, the smaller the denominator and the higher the LPR. It is another example of how demographics effects the LPR independent of economic conditions, which is why the LPR is such a lousy economic indicator!!!!

But here's my problem.....

You are thus assuming that there was a significant increase in active duty military personnel. Significant enough to effect the civilian population numbers, and thus increase the LPR.

I don't see that as being true. Do you have evidence that's true?

Because everything that I see suggests the opposite. In raw numbers, active duty was lower in the 2003, than it had been in decades.

As a percentage of the population, military enrollment is lower than ever before.

Both would seem to indicate that the number of active duty troops, being at the lowest levels in American history, relative to the population, that we would expect the lowest labor participation rates in US history throughout the 00s. Instead, it's not nearly that bad.

So on what bases, what empirical evidence do you have of your claim?

But you are not counting the nearly 200,000 National Guard and reserves who made up over 40% of the active duty military in Iraq and over 50% in Afghanistan. That is more than enough to keep the LPR from falling for the few years it was holding steady during the Bush Regime.

Really?

200,000? That's a ton.... Like 0.0006% of the population....

According to the OECD, the total working population was 190 Million as of 2007. That would make those 200,000 at least 0.001% of the working population of the US.

Unless you have some other evidence to add, the national guard deal isn't convincing to me.

 

[Faun]

What's a Cater economy, you big dummy? You need help, seriously.

What's a carter economy?
Gas rationing long lines at the pump 7.5% unemployment rate Inflation of 15% Misery index of 24.5% The closest to Carter is obama at 14.9% But that is what an cater economy looks like.

How about that Bush economy? LOL! He took Clinton's good economy and flushed it down a commode. When he left office, we were losing approximately 800,000 jobs a month.

And clinton took money from Social Security to cover the budget so idiots like you would be easily fooled.

Weird, you mean Ronnie increasing SS taxes by 60% would cause Clinton's surpluses? Why did Ronnie triple the debt then?


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Clinton surplus is like you having a brain all a myth

Wait, what? There was no surplus? Did you know that back in 2000 when Clinton was bragging about balancing the budget?

 

[Faun]

How the FUKKK could Ronnie Reagan have a successful economy his first 6 years when the top tax rate was 50%+

I wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


December 2007 (PRE Dubya's great recession)

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.



The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair



ONCE MORE:

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

He did dumb ass

YOU are just a troll Bubba, multiple CREDIBLE links have shown you are full of it. Typical conservative today who denies reality!

Go **** yourself dumb ass America grew even with a bad Cater economy and did great until Clinton came along.
You are one god damn stupid son of a *****.

Yeah the 2)+ million jobs created under Clinton was horrible, as well as the 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER he vetoed the GOPs $700+ billion tax cut. Then Dubya came along and the GOP had the opportunity, to AGAIN, screw up the economy! Dumbfukkk conservatives like you made the guys who barely made it through high school, multimillionaires, like Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity

WOW such a pitiful little obama supporter idiot.

Hisses a Bush voter.

 

[Faun]

He's desperately trying to divert attention away from good news. It's what the far right mouth-breathers do.

What diversion puppy in a lost fight?

You're as demented as they come.

No I'm as correct as they come you're dismissed.

Nope, I had it right, you're demented. If you were correct, you'd be able to explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. So you feign outrage and pretend like you don't want to answer when the stark reality is -- you can't answer.

Oh, and by the way ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

Just keep telling yourself that, doesn't matter it's not true.

Again, if it were true, you'd be able ti explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. Sadly for you, being a lowly Bush voter, you're too stupid to understand that.

But I guarantee most others here understand it.

 

[Faun]

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So ******* be it.

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

You think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of employed and you're trying to say I'm wrong. Too funny.

Why wouldn't it?

Because the Labor Force is Employed PLUS Unemployed, not just employed.
And the Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a PERCENT of the Population.
You keep citing a percent and claiming it's the number.

yeah I know yada yada yada from you it's all bull shit. Do you work for the department of labor? Are you job scare and need to feed the lie?

He's too stupid to comprehend that and his head is way too far up his own ass to understand this is why most everyone here is laughing at him.

 

[Dad2three]

More like, the LPR was falling until Bush started his wars and remained steady until the surge when it improved slightly and then steadily declined as the troops have gradually come home.

So you are suggesting that the majority, if not all, of the troops that come home, have remained unemployed?

Do you have any evidence to support that theory? Other than correlation equals causation....

Because... honestly, having worked with dozens of companies, companies LOVE to hire military personnel. If there is any fast-track to employment, it's having a military record on your resume.

I am suggesting no such thing, not even remotely!!!!!

Active military are not counted as part of the noninstitutional civilian population, which is the denominator in the calculation of the LPR, so the more military on active duty, the smaller the denominator and the higher the LPR. It is another example of how demographics effects the LPR independent of economic conditions, which is why the LPR is such a lousy economic indicator!!!!

But here's my problem.....

You are thus assuming that there was a significant increase in active duty military personnel. Significant enough to effect the civilian population numbers, and thus increase the LPR.

I don't see that as being true. Do you have evidence that's true?

Because everything that I see suggests the opposite. In raw numbers, active duty was lower in the 2003, than it had been in decades.

As a percentage of the population, military enrollment is lower than ever before.

Both would seem to indicate that the number of active duty troops, being at the lowest levels in American history, relative to the population, that we would expect the lowest labor participation rates in US history throughout the 00s. Instead, it's not nearly that bad.

So on what bases, what empirical evidence do you have of your claim?

But you are not counting the nearly 200,000 National Guard and reserves who made up over 40% of the active duty military in Iraq and over 50% in Afghanistan. That is more than enough to keep the LPR from falling for the few years it was holding steady during the Bush Regime.

Really?

200,000? That's a ton.... Like 0.0006% of the population....

According to the OECD, the total working population was 190 Million as of 2007. That would make those 200,000 at least 0.001% of the working population of the US.

Unless you have some other evidence to add, the national guard deal isn't convincing to me.

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.


If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1 percent. If the percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1 percent.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[edthecynic]

More like, the LPR was falling until Bush started his wars and remained steady until the surge when it improved slightly and then steadily declined as the troops have gradually come home.

So you are suggesting that the majority, if not all, of the troops that come home, have remained unemployed?

Do you have any evidence to support that theory? Other than correlation equals causation....

Because... honestly, having worked with dozens of companies, companies LOVE to hire military personnel. If there is any fast-track to employment, it's having a military record on your resume.

I am suggesting no such thing, not even remotely!!!!!

Active military are not counted as part of the noninstitutional civilian population, which is the denominator in the calculation of the LPR, so the more military on active duty, the smaller the denominator and the higher the LPR. It is another example of how demographics effects the LPR independent of economic conditions, which is why the LPR is such a lousy economic indicator!!!!

But here's my problem.....

You are thus assuming that there was a significant increase in active duty military personnel. Significant enough to effect the civilian population numbers, and thus increase the LPR.

I don't see that as being true. Do you have evidence that's true?

Because everything that I see suggests the opposite. In raw numbers, active duty was lower in the 2003, than it had been in decades.

As a percentage of the population, military enrollment is lower than ever before.

Both would seem to indicate that the number of active duty troops, being at the lowest levels in American history, relative to the population, that we would expect the lowest labor participation rates in US history throughout the 00s. Instead, it's not nearly that bad.

So on what bases, what empirical evidence do you have of your claim?

But you are not counting the nearly 200,000 National Guard and reserves who made up over 40% of the active duty military in Iraq and over 50% in Afghanistan. That is more than enough to keep the LPR from falling for the few years it was holding steady during the Bush Regime.

Really?

200,000? That's a ton.... Like 0.0006% of the population....

According to the OECD, the total working population was 190 Million as of 2007. That would make those 200,000 at least 0.001% of the working population of the US.

Unless you have some other evidence to add, the national guard deal isn't convincing to me.

So when you have 300,000 regular military and 200,00 guard on active duty in the ME, that removes half a million from the DENOMINATOR of the LPR which will raise the LPR between .2% and .3%, which kept Bush's LPR steady around 66% for the duration of the ME wars after it had been falling steadily from the 67.2% he inherited. Once Obama came in you had the combined effect of the 500,000 military being gradually drawn down and gradually increasing the denominator and the Boomers who just started retiring decreasing the numerator. Now that nearly all the military have been drawn down from active duty in the ME you just have the Boomers retiring and the decline in the LPR has slowed down. For example, In Obama's first 2.5 years the LPR fell 1.7%, but in his last 2.5 years the LPR fell only 1.3%.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What diversion puppy in a lost fight?

You're as demented as they come.

No I'm as correct as they come you're dismissed.

Nope, I had it right, you're demented. If you were correct, you'd be able to explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. So you feign outrage and pretend like you don't want to answer when the stark reality is -- you can't answer.

Oh, and by the way ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

Just keep telling yourself that, doesn't matter it's not true.

Again, if it were true, you'd be able ti explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. Sadly for you, being a lowly Bush voter, you're too stupid to understand that.

But I guarantee most others here understand it.

I have explained dumb ass
I never gave a hard number I said fewer people are participating in the work force now than in 2009 66% vs 62% now you are ******* dismissed

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You've been wrong so many times idiot.
And if you want more So ******* be it.

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

You think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of employed and you're trying to say I'm wrong. Too funny.

Why wouldn't it?

Because the Labor Force is Employed PLUS Unemployed, not just employed.
And the Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a PERCENT of the Population.
You keep citing a percent and claiming it's the number.

Yes dumb ass yes fewer people are working but more jobs have been cooked in the mixed I got it , you'll believe any ******* thing just as long as it's coming from liar of the year 2013
You really are a dumb son of a *****.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What's a carter economy?
Gas rationing long lines at the pump 7.5% unemployment rate Inflation of 15% Misery index of 24.5% The closest to Carter is obama at 14.9% But that is what an cater economy looks like.

How about that Bush economy? LOL! He took Clinton's good economy and flushed it down a commode. When he left office, we were losing approximately 800,000 jobs a month.

And clinton took money from Social Security to cover the budget so idiots like you would be easily fooled.

Weird, you mean Ronnie increasing SS taxes by 60% would cause Clinton's surpluses? Why did Ronnie triple the debt then?


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Clinton surplus is like you having a brain all a myth

No more mythical than Bush's $160 billion deficit for fiscal 2007.

OH well ed the liar strikes out again.

 

[Faun]

You're as demented as they come.

No I'm as correct as they come you're dismissed.

Nope, I had it right, you're demented. If you were correct, you'd be able to explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. So you feign outrage and pretend like you don't want to answer when the stark reality is -- you can't answer.

Oh, and by the way ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

Just keep telling yourself that, doesn't matter it's not true.

Again, if it were true, you'd be able ti explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. Sadly for you, being a lowly Bush voter, you're too stupid to understand that.

But I guarantee most others here understand it.

I have explained dumb ass
I never gave a hard number I said fewer people are participating in the work force now than in 2009 66% vs 62% now you are ******* dismissed

Hey, look everyone ... the brain-dead rightie just changed his position!

No, dildo, you did not say "fewer people are participating in the work force now than in 2009." Had you said that, you wouldn't have been the laughing stock of this thread. You may be saying that now because Liberals here have been educating you why you're an imbecile, and it finally sunk in; however, this is what you were actually saying ...

• "Dumb ass what has more workers 66% or 62%."
  
  
• "Which percentage has more worker? 2009 66% or 2014 62%"
  
  
• "Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009."
  
  
• "Less people are working now than when obama took office in 2009."
  
  
• "And dumb ass the current BLS data I used showed less people working than was working in 2009."
  
  
• "65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT."

So what have we learned from this exercise? 1) Bush voters are the dumbest creatures on the face of the Earth; 2) You were claiming there are fewer "workers" now even though there are actually more; 3) you switched your position from, "there are fewer workers now," to, "fewer people are participating in the work force now."; 4) Liberals can teach you; and 5) you're still not man enough to dismiss me.

 

[Faun]

Show me once where I've been wrong. I double-dog dare you.

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

You think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of employed and you're trying to say I'm wrong. Too funny.

Why wouldn't it?

Because the Labor Force is Employed PLUS Unemployed, not just employed.
And the Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a PERCENT of the Population.
You keep citing a percent and claiming it's the number.

Yes dumb ass yes fewer people are working but more jobs have been cooked in the mixed I got it , you'll believe any ******* thing just as long as it's coming from liar of the year 2013
You really are a dumb son of a *****.

Explain how numbers Liberals' post from the BLS are "cooked," but numbers you post from the BLS are not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No I'm as correct as they come you're dismissed.

Nope, I had it right, you're demented. If you were correct, you'd be able to explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. So you feign outrage and pretend like you don't want to answer when the stark reality is -- you can't answer.

Oh, and by the way ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

Just keep telling yourself that, doesn't matter it's not true.

Again, if it were true, you'd be able ti explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. Sadly for you, being a lowly Bush voter, you're too stupid to understand that.

But I guarantee most others here understand it.

I have explained dumb ass
I never gave a hard number I said fewer people are participating in the work force now than in 2009 66% vs 62% now you are ******* dismissed

Hey, look everyone ... the brain-dead rightie just changed his position!

No, dildo, you did not say "fewer people are participating in the work force now than in 2009." Had you said that, you wouldn't have been the laughing stock of this thread. You may be saying that now because Liberals here have been educating you why you're an imbecile, and it finally sunk in; however, this is what you were actually saying ...

• "Dumb ass what has more workers 66% or 62%."
  
  
• "Which percentage has more worker? 2009 66% or 2014 62%"
  
  
• "Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009."
  
  
• "Less people are working now than when obama took office in 2009."
  
  
• "And dumb ass the current BLS data I used showed less people working than was working in 2009."
  
  
• "65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT."

So what have we learned from this exercise? 1) Bush voters are the dumbest creatures on the face of the Earth; 2) You were claiming there are fewer "workers" now even though there are actually more; 3) you switched your position from, "there are fewer workers now," to, "fewer people are participating in the work force now."; 4) Liberals can teach you; and 5) you're still not man enough to dismiss me.

That's right you are a dumb ass to believe that shit you spew as logical. but that is the way of the cock suckers known as obama supporters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm telling you are wrong and have been wrong and no I'm not going to post any post but I do have a good memory.
So shit stain move along.

You think the labor force participation rate tells us the number of employed and you're trying to say I'm wrong. Too funny.

Why wouldn't it?

Because the Labor Force is Employed PLUS Unemployed, not just employed.
And the Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a PERCENT of the Population.
You keep citing a percent and claiming it's the number.

Yes dumb ass yes fewer people are working but more jobs have been cooked in the mixed I got it , you'll believe any ******* thing just as long as it's coming from liar of the year 2013
You really are a dumb son of a *****.

Explain how numbers Liberals' post from the BLS are "cooked," but numbers you post from the BLS are not.

You do the ******* home work dumb ass.

 

[Faun]

How about that Bush economy? LOL! He took Clinton's good economy and flushed it down a commode. When he left office, we were losing approximately 800,000 jobs a month.

And clinton took money from Social Security to cover the budget so idiots like you would be easily fooled.

Weird, you mean Ronnie increasing SS taxes by 60% would cause Clinton's surpluses? Why did Ronnie triple the debt then?


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Clinton surplus is like you having a brain all a myth

No more mythical than Bush's $160 billion deficit for fiscal 2007.

OH well ed the liar strikes out again.

Well ... ? In 2000 when Clinton AND Republicans were boasting of producing a budget surplus, did you know there wasn't a surplus?

 

[Faun]

Nope, I had it right, you're demented. If you were correct, you'd be able to explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. So you feign outrage and pretend like you don't want to answer when the stark reality is -- you can't answer.

Oh, and by the way ... you're not man enough to dismiss me.

Just keep telling yourself that, doesn't matter it's not true.

Again, if it were true, you'd be able ti explain how the labor force participation rate indicates how many people are working. You can't because it doesn't. Sadly for you, being a lowly Bush voter, you're too stupid to understand that.

But I guarantee most others here understand it.

I have explained dumb ass
I never gave a hard number I said fewer people are participating in the work force now than in 2009 66% vs 62% now you are ******* dismissed

Hey, look everyone ... the brain-dead rightie just changed his position!

No, dildo, you did not say "fewer people are participating in the work force now than in 2009." Had you said that, you wouldn't have been the laughing stock of this thread. You may be saying that now because Liberals here have been educating you why you're an imbecile, and it finally sunk in; however, this is what you were actually saying ...

• "Dumb ass what has more workers 66% or 62%."
  
  
• "Which percentage has more worker? 2009 66% or 2014 62%"
  
  
• "Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009."
  
  
• "Less people are working now than when obama took office in 2009."
  
  
• "And dumb ass the current BLS data I used showed less people working than was working in 2009."
  
  
• "65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT."

So what have we learned from this exercise? 1) Bush voters are the dumbest creatures on the face of the Earth; 2) You were claiming there are fewer "workers" now even though there are actually more; 3) you switched your position from, "there are fewer workers now," to, "fewer people are participating in the work force now."; 4) Liberals can teach you; and 5) you're still not man enough to dismiss me.

That's right you are a dumb ass to believe that shit you spew as logical. but that is the way of the cock suckers known as obama supporters.

Your faggish limp-wristed empty retort is noted.