Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[bigrebnc1775]

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

When Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce so spin that shit somewhere else.

 

[The Rabbi]

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

For someone who can't even read a simple chart, you are being awful judgmental.

Since you cannot explain said chart you are being pretty presumptuous.
I'll ask you: was Obama lying or merely grossly incompetent when he made those predictions?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

Thanks.

Don't tell me you believe that bullshit full of lies?

I asked him to explain the difference and he did. I've never used the term "level" to denote an actual hard number, nor have I ever heard an educated person use it that way but maybe there's something I'm missing.
But he didnt obfuscate, insult, or deflect. He answered my question and I give him credit.

He deserves everything insults included that he gets.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

When Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce so spin that shit somewhere else.

Unemployment was lower than that under Bush. We seldom heard all this class warfare bullshit because most of the time anyone who wanted a job could get one. Under Obama of course all of that went to shit.

 

[Faun]

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

Thanks.

Don't tell me you believe that bullshit full of lies?

You're as fucked in the head as they come, gramps. How sad.

 

[JQPublic1]

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

 

[The Rabbi]

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.
Yeah, tell me about it.


So if Obama got the wrong information, who got fired? I mean it isnt like there is one guy giving him advice or information. It goes through many hands before ending up on his desk and they discuss it etc.
As for the GOP, the Dems controlled both Houses of Congress. The GOP was powerless to stop anything.

 

[JQPublic1]

His estimate was off, so what?

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

For someone who can't even read a simple chart, you are being awful judgmental.

Since you cannot explain said chart you are being pretty presumptuous.
I'll ask you: was Obama lying or merely grossly incompetent when he made those predictions?

I have already explained myself enough! just because you didn't graduate high school does not mean you can come here expecting Democrats to undergo special efforts to educate you.

 

[The Rabbi]

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

So was he lying or just incompetent?

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

For someone who can't even read a simple chart, you are being awful judgmental.

Since you cannot explain said chart you are being pretty presumptuous.
I'll ask you: was Obama lying or merely grossly incompetent when he made those predictions?

I have already explained myself enough! just because you didn't graduate high school does not mean you can come here expecting Democrats to undergo special efforts to educate you.

So you can't explain it and it's my fault.
This is typical.

 

[JQPublic1]

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.
Yeah, tell me about it.


So if Obama got the wrong information, who got fired? I mean it isnt like there is one guy giving him advice or information. It goes through many hands before ending up on his desk and they discuss it etc.
As for the GOP, the Dems controlled both Houses of Congress. The GOP was powerless to stop anything.

If I remember correctly Obama kept a number of Republicans in his administration. His naivete showed when he allowed the GOP to take advantage of his desire for bipartisanship. While he may have intended to keep his enemies close so he could keep his eye on them, it is clear now that their designs were to undermine his presidency from the start.

I notice you keep avoiding the fact that the tax cuts for the rich and the GOPs promise of job creation
may have had a deeper impact on Obama's thinking than you care to admit.

 

[JQPublic1]

I have explained

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

Neither.

I'd ask you to explain how someone with all the economic knowledge in this country available to him could promise some result and be completely and utterly wrong about it, to the order of several magnitudes.
That isnt an unlucky guess. That is either lying or incompetence.
So which is it?

For someone who can't even read a simple chart, you are being awful judgmental.

Since you cannot explain said chart you are being pretty presumptuous.
I'll ask you: was Obama lying or merely grossly incompetent when he made those predictions?

I have already explained myself enough! just because you didn't graduate high school does not mean you can come here expecting Democrats to undergo special efforts to educate you.

So you can't explain it and it's my fault.

I have explained it. Let's see you debunk it! that's your job!

 

[pinqy]

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

Thanks.

Don't tell me you believe that bullshit full of lies?

What exactly are you claiming is a lie

 

[pinqy]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Wait. Do you really think Obama had anything to do with the estimate? He doesn't have the knowledge or math skills.

 

[Faun]

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Aww, poor, Bush voter ...

es·ti·mate

1 : the act of appraising or valuing : calculation 2 : an opinion or judgment of the nature, character, or quality of a person or thing <had a high estimate of his abilities> 3 a : a rough or approximate calculation b : a numerical value obtained from a statistical sample and assigned to a population parameter

But it wasnt even a rough estimate. It was simply a lie.

Now you want us to believe that a United States President is going to stand up there ,knowing the political consequences of lying, and undermine his chances of being a two-termer? Nah! Obama was just given the wrong information. Or, he expected the GOP to keep the promise of more jobs if the tax cuts for the
Wealthy stayed in place.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.
Yeah, tell me about it.


So if Obama got the wrong information, who got fired? I mean it isnt like there is one guy giving him advice or information. It goes through many hands before ending up on his desk and they discuss it etc.
As for the GOP, the Dems controlled both Houses of Congress. The GOP was powerless to stop anything.

Why would anybody get fired? They gave an estimate that was off by 20%. Not a big deal. Besides, along with their estimate was a huge disclaimer that being an estimate, their figures could be off by substantial amounts.

 

[edthecynic]

Bush didn't Clinton didn't So **** off.

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

Again with the bait & switch??

You were complaining about the record high 92 million people not in the labor force. When you're showed how Reagan broke the record for the number of people not in the labor force too when he was president, you dishonestly switch to the participation rate.

You nailed the lying MFer! He thinks if he edits out what he said no one will remember. He thinks everyone is as stupid as a CON$ervoFascist.

It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a **** you should have been condomized

 

[edthecynic]

Both Bushes did Reagan did, Clinton did, Carter did, Ford did, Nixon did. The next president will no matter who it is!

dumb ass
OK Carter held the record until obama took it from him.

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

Again with the bait & switch??

You were complaining about the record high 92 million people not in the labor force. When you're showed how Reagan broke the record for the number of people not in the labor force too when he was president, you dishonestly switch to the participation rate.

What ******* bait and switch?
Obama has the record set back in 78 by carter.

This bait and switch:

It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a **** you should have been condomized

Ford passed a record 61,491,000 not in labor force to Carter. In 4 yraes Carter left with a record 62,218,000 not in the labor force. In Carter's 4 years the not in the labor force increased by 727,000. It took St Ronnie all of one [1] month to set a new record of 62,264,000 not in the labor force. At the end of 4 years Reagan upped the record another 1,645,000, (more than double Carter's 4 year total), to 63,909,000 which he again broke in the very next month. Bush I brought the record to 66,776,000 not in the labor force. Clinton upped it to 70,182,000 in his 8 years and Bush II set the record at 81,293,000 not in the labor force. None of the 6 presidents just mentioned had Boomers retiring.

 

[edthecynic]

Very misleading information. Unemployment was in the 4% to 5% during the majority of Bush's presidency.

You appear to be confused. The op has been updated times but here is one of the latest updates:

The Unemployment Rate When Obama Took Office:

• For the record, when Obama took office in January 2009, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers was 7.8%, with 12,079,000 people reporting themselves as unemployedand actively looking. 142,153,000 people were working in January 2009.* (These numbers are adjusted slightly since original publication as the Bureau of Labor Statistics updates its numbers. The original January 2009 unemployment rate reported by the BLS in February 2009 was 7.6%)
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate was 8.5% with 13,009,000 people reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. 140,436,000 people were working in numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance.

The Unemployment Rate at its Peak:

• At the "trough" (bottom in terms of jobs) of the recession in late 2009/early 2010, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers climbed to 10.0% in October 2009 with15,382,000 people (out of a labor force of 153,887,000) reporting themselves as unemployed. 138,421,000 were working in October 2009; however, the lowest number of people working was reported in December 2009, when 138,025,000people (in seasonally adjusted numbers) were working.
• In "raw" numbers not adjusted for seasonal variance, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 10.6% in January 2010 with 16,147,000(out of a labor force of 152,957,000) reporting themselves as unemployed and actively looking for work. Only 136,809,000were working (in "raw" unadjusted numbers) in January 2010.

The Unemployment Rate NOW:

• Now, in September 2014, the "official" unemployment rate in seasonally adjusted numbers is 5.9%, with 9,262,000 (out of a large labor force of 155,862,000) unemployed and actively looking for work. 146,600,000 people are working now. (Last month 146,368,000 were working. This is an increase of 232,000people working in seasonally adjusted numbers.) The unemployment rate decreased 0.2% to 5.9% as the number of unemployed decreased by 80,000. The labor force DECREASED by 64,000 people in September. We have 524,000more people in the labor force than we did in September 2013, 2,189,000more people are employed than a year ago, and 1,665,000fewer people are unemployed than we were unemployed a year ago in September 2013. (The unemployment rate has now decreased 1.1% in the year since September 2013.)

The op is not about Bush's average UE, it's about the UE he passed onto Obama. The opening sentence of the above document clearly points that out!

The rate went well over the 8% Obama said it would go if the stimulus passed in 2009.

His estimate was off, so what?

He was over 20% wrong. That's unacceptable except to ass kissers like you. He's a liar and you're willing to accept it.

Wait. Do you really think Obama had anything to do with the estimate? He doesn't have the knowledge or math skills.

Not only that, UE was already over 8% by the time the stimulus got passed the GOP delays.

 

[edthecynic]

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter.

Show me where low worker participation for Reagan set a record?

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

A level is a single total number and a rate is a ratio between two numbers.

 

[edthecynic]

When Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce so spin that shit somewhere else.

Yet another lie!!!

When Bush had a fake 5.8% UE rate, the "real" rate was much higher , there were 154,469,000 in the workforce. There are 155,862,000 now.

 

[pinqy]

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

No one has made that claim. The LEVEL not in the labor force has set a record under every president as the population has grown

Dumb ass I take it you can't read?

Nope, Reagan set the record after Carter

Not only can I read, I can understand. Ed was talking about record level, not rate.

Can you explain the difference between a level and a rate?

Level is the actual number
Rate is a percentage.
For what we're talking about…
The population level is 248,446,000 people
The employment level is 146,600,00 people
The unemployment level is 9,262,000 people.
The labor force is employed plus unemployed, so the labor force level is 155,862,000
The Not in the Labor Force level is 92,584,000

The labor force participation rate is 155,862,000/248,446,000=.627=62.7%

The employment-population ratio is 146,600,000/248,446,000=.59=59%

And the unemployment rate is 9,262,000/155,862,000=.059=5.9%

When Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce so spin that shit somewhere else.

What on Earth does that have to do with my post?
I was giving the definitions and used the September 2014 numbers as an example. No idea why you think t was comparing anything to Bush.