"Roaring" Obamaconomy has millions more on food stamps then under Bush

[pinqy]

why would people just not want to work leftard?

because the WELFARE STATE has expanded under obama maybe?

Or because they're retired. Or because they'd rather concentrate on school. Or they're disabled. Or they'd rather stay home and look after the kids. Not in the Labor Force does not mean "on welfare."

 

[bedowin62]

why would people just not want to work leftard?

because the WELFARE STATE has expanded under obama maybe?

Or because they're retired. Or because they'd rather concentrate on school. Or they're disabled. Or they'd rather stay home and look after the kids. Not in the Labor Force does not mean "on welfare."

YAWN
you're an idiot on your own narrative; no use talking to you

i specifically mentioned WORKING AGE, not retired Americans

i never said they were all on welfare you idiot. i said the welfare state has expanded under obama and it has. i am saying that allows people to not even be looking for work and that is also true

 

[bedowin62]

RECORD NUMBERS ARE ALSO ON some form of disability

 

[pinqy]

i specifically mentioned WORKING AGE, not retired Americans

Not in the post I was responding to, you weren't. And the Labor Force is not "working age Americans" as you falsely claimed. The population is everyone in the United States age 16 and older excluding military and those in prison or an institution and the Labor Force are those who are working or looking for work. So retirees (aside from those in assisted living or retirement homes) affect the rate.

i never said they were all on welfare you idiot. i said the welfare state has expanded under obama and it has. i am saying that allows people to not even be looking for work and that is also true

But you haven't provided evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[pinqy]

YAWN. libs are such dummies i swear. the "record 157,180,000 in Labor Force" is a raw number and is meaningless. population has increased in the USA. IT ISNT A RATE; as the 38-YEAR LOW IN LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION is under obama

So we can agree that "RECORD 93,770,000 AMERICANS NOT IN LABOR FORCE" is meaningless because population has increased?

As for the "38 year low" for the rate, it's higher than any month before 1978. The rate went up until 2000 and has been going down since then. The Participation rate has as much to do with demographics as anything else. A third of the drop is due to those age 55 and older. Another third comes from students aged 16-24..larger percent of kids going to school, lower percent in the labor force.

your theory falls apart upon scrutiny; at both the younger end and the upper age brackets

Oh? The participation rate has been going down since 1999. The average participation rate in 1999 was 67.1% and in 2014 it was down to 62.9% that's a drop of 4.2 percentage points.
0.3 points were from age 16-24 not enrolled in school
1.4 pointes were from age 16-24 enrolled in school
1.2 points were from age 25-54
and 1.4 points were from age 55+
(yes, those add up to 4.3, not 4.2.........rounding errors.)

So, as I said....most of the decrease is to people getting old and retiring and increased school enrollment.

 

[bedowin62]

i specifically mentioned WORKING AGE, not retired Americans

Not in the post I was responding to, you weren't. And the Labor Force is not "working age Americans" as you falsely claimed. The population is everyone in the United States age 16 and older excluding military and those in prison or an institution and the Labor Force are those who are working or looking for work. So retirees (aside from those in assisted living or retirement homes) affect the rate.

i never said they were all on welfare you idiot. i said the welfare state has expanded under obama and it has. i am saying that allows people to not even be looking for work and that is also true

But you haven't provided evidence.

[/QUOTE]


yes genius; thanks for making my point for me. as you noted "looking for work". i showed you that many are in that category of not being in an institution and not in the military but they ARENT even looking for work

i gave you evidence; you chose to ignore it

 

[bedowin62]

the participation rate may have been going down; but it's at a 38-year low under obama

non-starter there buddy

 

[bedowin62]

this is from BLS.GOV:


Are there more older people in the workplace?
Between 1977 and 2007, employment of workers 65 and over increased 101 percent, compared to a much smaller increase of 59 percent for total employment (16 and over). The number of employed men 65 and over rose 75 percent, but employment of women 65 and older increased by nearly twice as much, climbing 147 percent. While the number of employed people age 75 and over is relatively small (0.8 percent of the employed in 2007), this group had the most dramatic gain, increasing 172 percent between 1977 and 2007.

 

[bedowin62]

OLDER WORKERS are choosing to remain in the workforce, younger ones are choosing not to even be LOOKING for a job

why is that genius?

 

[bedowin62]

and people are staying in school because they dont feel there is a job for them out there

but again you use it as an argument against me, but it makes the case for my OP point.
thanks

 

[pinqy]

yes genius; thanks for making my point for me. as you noted "looking for work". i showed you that many are in that category of not being in an institution and not in the military but they ARENT even looking for work

i gave you evidence; you chose to ignore it

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[pinqy]

and people are staying in school because they dont feel there is a job for them out there

but again you use it as an argument against me, but it makes the case for my OP point.
thanks

You do realize this is not a chat room, right? You don't have to keep putting seperate thoughts in a row...you can put them all in one post. It's too hard to follow your train of thought when you spread things out.

 

[bedowin62]

and people are staying in school because they dont feel there is a job for them out there

but again you use it as an argument against me, but it makes the case for my OP point.
thanks

You do realize this is not a chat room, right? You don't have to keep putting seperate thoughts in a row...you can put them all in one post. It's too hard to follow your train of thought when you spread things out.

thanks for the heads up

yawn

 

[pinqy]

OLDER WORKERS are choosing to remain in the workforce,

Because people are living longer, staying healthier longer, and receive social security later.

younger ones are choosing not to even be LOOKING for a job

why is that genius?

Because they don't need to work and figure they're better off going to school and improving their chances to get a job.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

'"Roaring" Obamaconomy has millions more on food stamps then [sic] under Bush'

This fails as a confusion of correlation and causation fallacy:

More people are on food stamps so the economy must be 'bad.'

When in fact one has nothing to do with the other.

Indeed, USDA has been promoting the SNAP program for years now, where more people are participating in the program because they're aware of the program, not because the economy is 'failing.'

So, in your world, record numbers of people unable/unwilling to pay for their on food is a good thing?

 

[pinqy]

'"Roaring" Obamaconomy has millions more on food stamps then [sic] under Bush'

This fails as a confusion of correlation and causation fallacy:

More people are on food stamps so the economy must be 'bad.'

When in fact one has nothing to do with the other.

Indeed, USDA has been promoting the SNAP program for years now, where more people are participating in the program because they're aware of the program, not because the economy is 'failing.'

So, in your world, record numbers of people unable/unwilling to pay for their on food is a good thing?

Let's say in year 0 there are 1 million people who need food stamps, but only 500,000 receive them and 500,000 suffer.
Next year there are still 1 million who need food stamps but now 600,000 receive them. Is this better because fewer people are suffering from lack of food, or worse because more people are receiving help?