Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[Faun]

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't ******* know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so ******* retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't ******* know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so ******* retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

unemployment is 12% (u6) now almost 50% higher than before the recession, there are fewer full time jobs now than whan Obama took office, and income for those who do work is down 5%.

Its the worst recovery since the Great Depression and not surprising since Barry is uber liberal and uber anti business.

 

[Faun]

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't ******* know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so ******* retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

unemployment is 12% (u6) now almost 50% higher than before the recession, there are fewer full time jobs now than whan Obama took office, and income for those who do work is down 5%.

Its the worst recovery since the Great Depression and not surprising since Barry is uber liberal and uber anti business.

Did you vote for Bush? Because he took the U6 rate from 7.3% to 14.2% -- that's a 95% increase. Obama's taken it from 14.2% to 11.8% -- that's a 15% decrease

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Did you vote for Bush? Because he took the U6 rate from 7.3% to 14.2% -- that's a 95% increase. Obama's taken it from 14.2% to 11.8% -- that's a 15% decrease

too stupid of course since Bush didn't cause recession, liberalism did, and liberalism is causing the slowest recovery since the Great Depression.

If liberalism is anti business how on earth could it not be responsible for business doing badly. Isn't thinking fun?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

 

[Faun]

Did you vote for Bush? Because he took the U6 rate from 7.3% to 14.2% -- that's a 95% increase. Obama's taken it from 14.2% to 11.8% -- that's a 15% decrease

too stupid of course since Bush didn't cause recession, liberalism did, and liberalism is causing the slowest recovery since the Great Depression.

If liberalism is anti business how on earth could it not be responsible for business doing badly. Isn't thinking fun?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

Nope, it was Bush and Republicans. They created the housing bubble which is what led to the crash.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't ******* know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so ******* retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nope, it was Bush and Republicans. They created the housing bubble which is what led to the crash.

dear, Republicans are for capitalism not the massive soviet regulation that characterized the housing market. For starters the Fed had to print the money to enable millions to buy and bubble up home prices with out which the bubble would have been 100% impossible!!.

 

[Faun]

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't ******* know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so ******* retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a ******* chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

 

[Faun]

Nope, it was Bush and Republicans. They created the housing bubble which is what led to the crash.

dear, Republicans are for capitalism not the massive soviet regulation that characterized the housing market. For starters the Fed had to print the money to enable millions to buy and bubble up home prices with out which the bubble would have been 100% impossible!!.

Your delusions aside, Bush and Republicans gave us the housing bubble and the economy crashed because that bubble burst. Try rewriting history with someone as insane as you, if you need someone to believe your hallucinations.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't ******* know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so ******* retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a ******* chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

dear we all know worker participation is very very low with many of those working having part time jobs and earning 5% less than in 2008. Most importantly, you must consider that population has grown 20 milllion since 2007 so we would need almost 20 million new jobs just to stay even.

Do you understand now?

 

[Faun]

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't ******* know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so ******* retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a ******* chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a **** how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

 

[Faun]

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

dear we all know worker participation is very very low with many of those working having part time jobs and earning 5% less than in 2008. Most importantly, you must consider that population has grown 20 milllion since 2007 so we would need almost 20 million new jobs just to stay even.

Do you understand now?

I understand you're as retarded as biggulpernc who can't tell the difference between the number of people working; from the percentage of people working.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your delusions aside, Bush and Republicans gave us the housing bubble.

dear why would you say that when Republicans support capitalsim not the massive soviet regulation that controlled the housing industry??

If you cant answer why not admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to defend what you saY?.

 

[Faun]

Your delusions aside, Bush and Republicans gave us the housing bubble.

dear why would you say that when Republicans support capitalsim not the massive soviet regulation that controlled the housing industry??

If you cant answer why not admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to defend what you saY?.

Because it's fact -- Bush and Republicans created the housing bubble. Your denials only serve to reveal you're a Conservative moron.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

dear we all know worker participation is very very low with many of those working having part time jobs and earning 5% less than in 2008. Most importantly, you must consider that population has grown 20 milllion since 2007 so we would need almost 20 million new jobs just to stay even.

Do you understand now?

I understand you're as retarded as biggulpernc who can't tell the difference between the number of people working; from the percentage of people working.

dear if most are working part time and making 5% less that is bad. Do you understand?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a ******* chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a **** how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

 

[bigrebnc1775]

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't ******* know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so ******* retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to ******* to stupid to understand anything.

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a ******* chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

I don't do smelly shit I debunk it.

 

[Faun]

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

dear we all know worker participation is very very low with many of those working having part time jobs and earning 5% less than in 2008. Most importantly, you must consider that population has grown 20 milllion since 2007 so we would need almost 20 million new jobs just to stay even.

Do you understand now?

I understand you're as retarded as biggulpernc who can't tell the difference between the number of people working; from the percentage of people working.

dear if most are working part time and making 5% less that is bad. Do you understand?

I understand that neither you nor biggulpernc understand the difference between the number of people working with the percentage of people working. But who knows, maybe some day even a conservative like you will figure it out.

 

[Faun]

No, I get it -- now you're calling yourself an imbecile.

Now, you are [correctly] stating, "more people in the working population..." But that contradicts what you said earlier, "when Bush had 5.8% unemployment more people were in the workforce..."

But at least now we're in agreement -- you're an idiot.

And more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014

Why do you think it's necessary for you to keep proving -- you can't read a ******* chart???

07/2008: 145,532,000
09/2014: 146,600,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here we go again, dumbfuck ... which is more ...145,532,000 or 146,600,000?

Dude you aren't comprehending this. I don't give a damn what that smelly shit is that you are using. We had a lower population in July 2008 than we have now in But working participation was at 66% in 2008 and now it's at 62% the numbers just don't match what you are being fed and it's stinks like shit.

I really don't give a **** how stupid you are. Words have meaning even though you don't know what they mean. You idiotically stated, "more people were working in July 2008 than in September 2014." That you have to switch your argument from the number of people to the percentage of people should have been your first clue that you're a flaming imbecile. Unfortunately for you, you're too big of a flaming imbecile to know you're a flaming imbecile. That's why I'm here to help you understand that.

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Who knows, rightard? Percentages don't reveal how many people are included, they reveal the percentage of people within a larger group.

Again, which is bigger? 145,532,000 or 146,600,000?