Obama's job growth were part-time jobs...partially due to Obamacare!

[keepitreal]

Your numbers show me you're confused

Not millions, thousands

Those were monthly figures from BLS for PT economic reasons

BLS

I choose non agricultural

Why is it always the confused Right who tell everyone else that they are the ones confused???
The BLS says the numbers are in thousands which means you add 3 zeros at the end, so 1,000 thousands is 1,000,000.
From your link:
Number in thousands

Um, 1,000 already has 3 zeros
3 more zeros on 1,000(,000)is 1 million

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

Get it?

IDIOT!
The Right try to beat you into submission with their STUPIDITY!!!!!!

 

[Jitss617]

Fast food restaurants exploded under Obama and he was so happy.. it’s like he was a retard

 

[edthecynic]

Why is it always the confused Right who tell everyone else that they are the ones confused???
The BLS says the numbers are in thousands which means you add 3 zeros at the end, so 1,000 thousands is 1,000,000.
From your link:
Number in thousands

Um, 1,000 already has 3 zeros
3 more zeros on 1,000(,000)is 1 million

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

Or, 685,500

No, the BLS chart would have then said "numbers in the hundreds."

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

 

[edthecynic]

Why is it always the confused Right who tell everyone else that they are the ones confused???
The BLS says the numbers are in thousands which means you add 3 zeros at the end, so 1,000 thousands is 1,000,000.
From your link:
Number in thousands

Um, 1,000 already has 3 zeros
3 more zeros on 1,000(,000)is 1 million

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

Get it?

IDIOT!
The Right try to beat you into submission with their STUPIDITY!!!!!!

Just keep making a fool of yourself just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Everybody reading this thread knows what "number in the thousands" means and are laughing at you!!!!!

 

[keepitreal]

Um, 1,000 already has 3 zeros
3 more zeros on 1,000(,000)is 1 million

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

Get it?

IDIOT!
The Right try to beat you into submission with their STUPIDITY!!!!!!

Just keep making a fool of yourself just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Everybody reading this thread knows what "number in the thousands" means and are laughing at you!!!!!

I don't give a **** who is laughing at me
I have any problem, whatsoever, admitting I'm wrong

 

[edthecynic]

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

Get it?

IDIOT!
The Right try to beat you into submission with their STUPIDITY!!!!!!

Just keep making a fool of yourself just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Everybody reading this thread knows what "number in the thousands" means and are laughing at you!!!!!

I don't give a **** who is laughing at me
I have any problem, whatsoever, admitting I'm wrong

Then do it!

 

[DustyInfinity]

Get it?

IDIOT!
The Right try to beat you into submission with their STUPIDITY!!!!!!

Just keep making a fool of yourself just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Everybody reading this thread knows what "number in the thousands" means and are laughing at you!!!!!

I don't give a **** who is laughing at me
I have any problem, whatsoever, admitting I'm wrong

Then do it!

Everyone's hours go from 40 to 32, and you deny it happened. Bizarre. At some point, truth isn't relative. Some people are just in love with their charts.

 

[keepitreal]

Um, 1,000 already has 3 zeros
3 more zeros on 1,000(,000)is 1 million

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

Or, 685,500

No, the BLS chart would have then said "numbers in the hundreds."

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

It is not an act...I have the BLS open in a separate tab

No, not at all
One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand
sounds plausible

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

 

[keepitreal]

Get it?

IDIOT!
The Right try to beat you into submission with their STUPIDITY!!!!!!

Just keep making a fool of yourself just to avoid admitting you are wrong. Everybody reading this thread knows what "number in the thousands" means and are laughing at you!!!!!

I don't give a **** who is laughing at me
I have any problem, whatsoever, admitting I'm wrong

Then do it!

What would you like me to admit I'm wrong about?

Do you admit 1,000 is not 1,000,000
Do you admit that six thousand, eight hundred fifty five thousands
is factually incorrect

 

[edthecynic]

Everyone's hours go from 40 to 32, and you deny it happened. Bizarre. At some point, truth isn't relative.

More lies easily proven.
Work hours actually ROSE after the PPACA was passed in late March 2010.
Time series of dataset [BLS/ce]

 

[edthecynic]

That's right, Sherlock.

Notice how the Right would rather play dumb than admit they were wrong, even though it contradicts their rants that they are the "high-information voters" and everyone who disagrees with them are "low-information voters."

So when the BLS gives you a number like 6855 which you posted, and says the numbers charted are in the thousands, then that means 6855 thousands which is 6,855,000.
Get it??????

Or, 685,500

No, the BLS chart would have then said "numbers in the hundreds."

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

It is not an act...I have the BLS open in a separate tab

No, not at all
One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand
sounds plausible

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

Number in thousands means the same in both charts.
And Six thousand, 855 thousands IS a numerical number, it is 6,855,000.
Come on admit it, it will not kill you to admit the truth, you survived admitting the labor force is One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand and not One hundred sixty four thousand, five hundred fifty six.

 

[keepitreal]

The BLS has the non institutional population
at 255,079 for 2017 with 153,337 working

According to BLS for the end of 2017
4992 were PT for economic reasons

Does that sound right

 

[keepitreal]

Or, 685,500

No, the BLS chart would have then said "numbers in the hundreds."

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

It is not an act...I have the BLS open in a separate tab

No, not at all
One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand
sounds plausible

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

Number in thousands means the same in both charts.
And Six thousand, 855 thousands IS a numerical number, it is 6,855,000.
Come on admit it, it will not kill you to admit the truth, you survived admitting the labor force is One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand and not One hundred sixty four thousand, five hundred fifty six.

Then how do you write six million eight hundred fifty five thousand

So, if I add 45,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

 

[Andylusion]

Up to 250,000 positions may have been eliminated

Pretty ambiguous-

I'm not a fan of gov't healthcare- however, Romney implemented a similar plan when he was governor- that said, anytime there is a significant change in gov't dictates there will be those who pay and those who are rewarded it doesn't matter what political stripe it happens under. Do you remember Bank Bail Outs by Bush Jr? The MIC profits mightily from war and tax payers foot the bill- not sure the difference can be pointed out with legitimacy- straw man arguments and hyperbole aren't legitimate or credible.
AND, in any economy there are cycles- when gov't intervenes the cycles are blamed, rightfully so, on the gov't whose original job was to ensure (not insure) one didn't have a legal advantage over another- not to impose so many regulations only well resourced participants could, will lag behind the employment curve. The only instant economy action are the Stock Market- all else takes time. IF indeed what the article suggests is true it was already qued up to happen-
Free enterprise is self correcting- gov't intervention is slower because the District of Criminals are, well, criminals and they have to be informed by their underlings that there is a problem, then meet about it to decide what's best to dictate what it fucked up- wash, rinse, repeat wearing out the fabric meaning the fabric has to be upgraded = consumer activity= "we did something" by congress critters- wash, rinse repeat time after time the same exercise and voters are duped into believing this time it will be different with this gov't intervention- SMH

You are right about Romney's plan. Did it work for Mass? But we are talking about 50 different states, multiple regions, multiple ethnic groups and ONE f...king size does not fit all for ALL Americans! That's why the 50 states are called "laboratories" for ideas. And healthcare for all will NOT work for ALL 330 million Americans.
JUST this one correction would save nearly $800 billion a year but idiots lthink the "lawsuit lottery" i.e. medical lawsuits will win millions.
HERE read what nearly 3,000 physicians responded to when asked if they practice what most people never heard of..."Defensive Medicine"!
Now if most people would do a little more research regarding issues like this maybe there might be some Tort reform of which there was NONE in ACA!

View attachment 301119

I actually don't believe this claim. Now I get it, that physicians want to believe that it's the lawsuits that are the driving factor in costs, due to defensive medicine. And I get it that the claim is logical, in that a doctor may order a test that is otherwise not needed, so that in the off chance someone files a lawsuit they can claim they did due diligence.

Fact is, more often than not, the doctors that are sued, are the ones that have actually been incompetent. I think most doctors that practice defensive medicine are doing so out of fear, rather than any real world reason. There have been a number of reports supporting this claim, which I have read over the past 10 years.

Is there a problem with tort reform? I think so. However, I don't think that this is the driving factor in cost. In fact, I know it isn't.

The driving factor in cost, is government. Plain and simple, the problem is government.

There are dozens of examples of this, but I'll give you one.

The blood test.

In a free-market capitalist system, where like everything else, a person who finds a way to sell the same good and service at a lower price wins, there would be a large incentive to find a way to do blood tests more accurately, faster, and at a lower cost.

For example, Walmart pioneered several cost cutting methods, that allowed them to undercut the competition on the same goods. Result.... Walmart is the largest retailer in the world. There was a pay-off for finding a way to provide the same goods and services at a lower price.

So why hasn't this brilliant economic system affected health care? Answer.... Government.

Medicare covers the vast majority of all patients. Medicare has a set payout for given treatments and tests. So... take a blood test.

Why would your clinic find a cheaper way to do a blood test? Why?

The vast majority of your patients, have no idea how much it costs you to do a blood test, because you can't charge them a lower price. Medicare dictates that.

Additionally, medicare pays the people who outsource the blood test to. So you finding a cheaper provider does nothing for you. You are paid the same no matter what.

Additionally, the people run the labs that do the blood tests, they have no incentive to find a cheaper method for doing those tests, for the similar reasons. First, there is no way to gain more customers, since government is paying the bill. The customers will see no price increase or decrease, because they are paid from Medicare at set prices, just like you are.

Lastly, some thinking left-wingers might say that they still have have a reason to find cheaper ways of doing things, because if they find a way to do it cheaper, then they can keep the difference. Right? If government pays out $200, and you find a way to lower your cost to $150, then you keep the $50 difference.

Problems is, we all know what would happen if they found a cheaper way to do things. The government would immediately move to cut medicare payouts. If they didn't, then you would have CNN and MSNBC, screaming about how the tax payers were paying the same price even though the health care companies were making higher profits off of Medicare.

We all know this is exactly what would happen, and so do the health care companies, which is why they make little to no effort to reduce the cost of treatments.

This is the real solution. We have to come up with some way to get capitalist market competition back into the system.

And honestly, I don't know of any method to do it, that doesn't involve a total collapse of the entire US government, and economy.

Eventually, when the entire system implodes, people revert back to a capitalist system, because they have no choice. There are examples of illegal health clinics in Cuba, and in Greece, and Venezuela, because they had no choice. As long as people have a choice between paying for it themselves, or passing the bill to the next generation, they choose to pass the bill.

 

[edthecynic]

The BLS has the non institutional population
at 255,079 for 2017 with 153,337 working

According to BLS for the end of 2017
4992 were PT for economic reasons

Does that sound right

NO! They are all off by a factor of 1,000.
Do you really think there are only 255,079 people in America over 16 years old who are not institutionalized?????

 

[edthecynic]

No, the BLS chart would have then said "numbers in the hundreds."

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

It is not an act...I have the BLS open in a separate tab

No, not at all
One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand
sounds plausible

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

Number in thousands means the same in both charts.
And Six thousand, 855 thousands IS a numerical number, it is 6,855,000.
Come on admit it, it will not kill you to admit the truth, you survived admitting the labor force is One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand and not One hundred sixty four thousand, five hundred fifty six.

Then how do you write six million eight hundred fifty five thousand

So, if I add 45,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

No you won't. you will have 900,000. Geezzz, you can't even do simple arithmetic.

 

[keepitreal]

The BLS has the non institutional population
at 255,079 for 2017 with 153,337 working

According to BLS for the end of 2017
4992 were PT for economic reasons

Does that sound right

NO! They are all off by a factor of 1,000.

I'm reading the numbers in millions

 

[keepitreal]

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

It is not an act...I have the BLS open in a separate tab

No, not at all
One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand
sounds plausible

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

Number in thousands means the same in both charts.
And Six thousand, 855 thousands IS a numerical number, it is 6,855,000.
Come on admit it, it will not kill you to admit the truth, you survived admitting the labor force is One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand and not One hundred sixty four thousand, five hundred fifty six.

Then how do you write six million eight hundred fifty five thousand

So, if I add 45,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

No you won't. you will have 900,000. Geezzz, you can't even do simple arithmetic.

Lol...my bad, you're right

So, if I add 145,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

 

[edthecynic]

The BLS has the non institutional population
at 255,079 for 2017 with 153,337 working

According to BLS for the end of 2017
4992 were PT for economic reasons

Does that sound right

NO! They are all off by a factor of 1,000.

I'm reading the numbers in millions

Which is what you get if you add 3 zeros at the end of each.

 

[keepitreal]

So, write out for me 6855 in hundreds and millions, please and thank you

Just stop the dumb act, please.
Lets look at another BLS chart.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Now the current size of the labor force is listed in the chart as 164556. Do you really think the entire USA labor force is 1 hundred and 64 thousand 5 hundred and 56 people out of a population of over 300 million or is it 164,556,000?????

It is not an act...I have the BLS open in a separate tab

No, not at all
One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand
sounds plausible

Now, that being the case, going back to 6855
what is this number in thousands

Six thousand, 855 thousands is not a numerical number

Number in thousands means the same in both charts.
And Six thousand, 855 thousands IS a numerical number, it is 6,855,000.
Come on admit it, it will not kill you to admit the truth, you survived admitting the labor force is One hundred sixty four million, five hundred fifty six thousand and not One hundred sixty four thousand, five hundred fifty six.

Then how do you write six million eight hundred fifty five thousand

So, if I add 45,000 to the 855 thousands, I'll have 7 thousand

No you won't. you will have 900,000. Geezzz, you can't even do simple arithmetic.

Isn't 900,000 greater than 6,000