Economy posts best growth on two years

[KissMy]

Reagan / Bush CIA Drug Running caused RECORD CRIME rate!!!
Clinton Cut Crime at Record rate!!!

The CIA, FBI & Bush allowed 9/11 & lied US into Iraq War!!!

 

[elektra]

You Lie! You post debt from earlier in September, not end of calendar year 1999 to end of calendar year 2000.

NO, you are ignorant! A FISCAL YEAR ENDS IN SEPTEMBER!!!!!!!!!!!!

Further, it is the government reporting this, not me. My link is to the United States of America Treasury Department. Check the link, it is to a .gov That is the government.

Seriously, where are you getting all your figures, it is obvious now, that you are simply posting lies, given the fact that you do not know that the budget is based on fiscal years, not calendar years.

I can not believe the level of stupidity "kissmy" has displayed.

You are seriously stupid. You said the debt went up "every year", not every fiscal year. I proved you are stupid & you continue to lie.

Right, you knew the debt and government operates on fiscal years when you stated I was lying when I showed the debt according to how the government operates, which is by fiscal year. So, to make your claim you are going to chop off the first part of a fiscal year and add it to the last part of the previous fiscal year? Try that in an economics class and you will fail. And thanks for showing everyone how you are a liar with no understanding of math or the economy. As a side note, Looks like the lying clinton will go to jail afterall.

 

[elektra]

Reagan / Bush CIA Drug Running caused RECORD CRIME rate!!!
Clinton Cut Crime at Record rate!!!

The CIA, FBI & Bush allowed 9/11 & lied US into Iraq War!!!

yea, clinton cut crime, by making it legal to be a criminal so that his wife could stay out of jail. It is called White Water.

 

[elektra]

Those are not the same thing. The labor force participation rate is the number of employed plus the number of unemployed as a percent of the adult civilian noninstitutional population. Nothing to do with "out of work."

unemployed has nothing to do with out of work?

I didn't say that (though you do realize your 92 million figure excludes the unemployed?). If you take the number of employed PLUS the number of unemployed that is the "Labor Force" Divide the Labor Force by the adult civilian non-institutional population and you get the percent of people in the population who are either working or trying to find a job. How do you think that gives a number of people "out of work?"

And you still haven't stated what you're defining as "out of work" or linked to a source.
the most basic question is whether or not you're calling people who don't want to or are unable to work "out of work?" That would not be normal usage.

92 million out of work, that is not the labor force, that us the amount out of work. I do nit see any numbers that refute that figure.

But the unemployed are in the labor force. "The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary." Glossary

The unemployed are defined as: "Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."

But you don't consider them "out of work." How come? And how many of those Not in the Labor Force want a job, are able to work, and could actually start work if offered? (I'll help: it's 1,844,000 A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex)

So why is it bad that a total of 94,456,000 people not trying to work can't find work? Would you expect them to? Especially since 88,703,000 of them don't want to (or are unable to) work.

okay, it is a record number of people out of work under Obama, 94 million.

 

[pinqy]

Those are not the same thing. The labor force participation rate is the number of employed plus the number of unemployed as a percent of the adult civilian noninstitutional population. Nothing to do with "out of work."

unemployed has nothing to do with out of work?

I didn't say that (though you do realize your 92 million figure excludes the unemployed?). If you take the number of employed PLUS the number of unemployed that is the "Labor Force" Divide the Labor Force by the adult civilian non-institutional population and you get the percent of people in the population who are either working or trying to find a job. How do you think that gives a number of people "out of work?"

And you still haven't stated what you're defining as "out of work" or linked to a source.
the most basic question is whether or not you're calling people who don't want to or are unable to work "out of work?" That would not be normal usage.

92 million out of work, that is not the labor force, that us the amount out of work. I do nit see any numbers that refute that figure.

But the unemployed are in the labor force. "The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary." Glossary

The unemployed are defined as: "Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."

But you don't consider them "out of work." How come? And how many of those Not in the Labor Force want a job, are able to work, and could actually start work if offered? (I'll help: it's 1,844,000 A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex)

So why is it bad that a total of 94,456,000 people not trying to work can't find work? Would you expect them to? Especially since 88,703,000 of them don't want to (or are unable to) work.

okay, it is a record number of people out of work under Obama, 94 million.

And a record number of people working: 152 million.
And again, why don't you think the unemployed are out of work but think that people who don't want a job are out of work?

 

[Brain357]

Those are not the same thing. The labor force participation rate is the number of employed plus the number of unemployed as a percent of the adult civilian noninstitutional population. Nothing to do with "out of work."

unemployed has nothing to do with out of work?

I didn't say that (though you do realize your 92 million figure excludes the unemployed?). If you take the number of employed PLUS the number of unemployed that is the "Labor Force" Divide the Labor Force by the adult civilian non-institutional population and you get the percent of people in the population who are either working or trying to find a job. How do you think that gives a number of people "out of work?"

And you still haven't stated what you're defining as "out of work" or linked to a source.
the most basic question is whether or not you're calling people who don't want to or are unable to work "out of work?" That would not be normal usage.

92 million out of work, that is not the labor force, that us the amount out of work. I do nit see any numbers that refute that figure.

But the unemployed are in the labor force. "The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary." Glossary

The unemployed are defined as: "Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."

But you don't consider them "out of work." How come? And how many of those Not in the Labor Force want a job, are able to work, and could actually start work if offered? (I'll help: it's 1,844,000 A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex)

So why is it bad that a total of 94,456,000 people not trying to work can't find work? Would you expect them to? Especially since 88,703,000 of them don't want to (or are unable to) work.

okay, it is a record number of people out of work under Obama, 94 million.

People retire.

 

[elektra]

People retire.

your kiddung

 

[Brain357]

People retire.

your kiddung

Not at all. People really do retire. What is the problem?

 

[elektra]

And a record number of people working: 152 million.
And again, why don't you think the unemployed are out of work but think that people who don't want a job are out of work?

Now that is a big whopper of a lie. A record number of people working? That makes the obama economy the greatest ever? Yet the National Debt doubled under Obama! Right, your numbers are bull crap and your idea of a healthy economy is a certainly delusional.

 

[miketx]

The desperate liars can't help themself.

 

[Brain357]

And a record number of people working: 152 million.
And again, why don't you think the unemployed are out of work but think that people who don't want a job are out of work?

Now that is a big whopper of a lie. A record number of people working? That makes the obama economy the greatest ever? Yet the National Debt doubled under Obama! Right, your numbers are bull crap and your idea of a healthy economy is a certainly delusional.

All economic indicators say it is a healthy economy.

 

[elektra]

People retire.

your kiddung

Not at all. People really do retire. What is the problem?

They really retire? Where did you learn so much. Your heart must be ad bug as your brain to share so much of your profound knowledge

 

[Brain357]

People retire.

your kiddung

Not at all. People really do retire. What is the problem?

They really retire? Where did you learn so much. Your heart must be ad bug as your brain to share so much of your profound knowledge

Based on your commments you seem to be unaware. So what is the problem?

 

[elektra]

All economic indicators say it is a healthy economy.

A record amount of people out of work disagree with you.

 

[elektra]

Based on your commments you seem to be unaware. So what is the problem?

Based on your comments you are a troll, why do you have a problem.

 

[Brain357]

All economic indicators say it is a healthy economy.

A record amount of people out of work disagree with you.

The unemployment rate is quite low actually. We have baby boomers retiring and people spending more time in school.

 

[Brain357]

Based on your commments you seem to be unaware. So what is the problem?

Based on your comments you are a troll, why do you have a problem.

So you admit it isn't a problem. Good.

 

[elektra]

The unemployment rate is quite low actually. We have baby boomers retiring and people spending more time in school.

No kidding, people are retiring, I kniw lots of people who have been forced to retire early. The jobs are gone, so that is nit a good thing when people are forced into early retirement. Staying in school longer because there are ni jobs is also bad.

 

[elektra]

So you admit it isn't a problem. Good.

I acknowledge you are a troll and can add nothing of substance to the conversation and that you are know denying the reality that everyone sees.

 

[Brain357]

The unemployment rate is quite low actually. We have baby boomers retiring and people spending more time in school.

No kidding, people are retiring, I kniw lots of people who have been forced to retire early. The jobs are gone, so that is nit a good thing when people are forced into early retirement. Staying in school longer because there are ni jobs is also bad.

Actually baby boomers are rather old. Retiring is what old people do. There is no problem.