Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[Faun]

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Of course they do. It doesn't matter if you don't like them. They are what they are.

You're boring me with your fail son.

Why? The fail is all yours. Need I remind you, you moronically claimed more people were in the work force in July, 2008, than today?

 

[pinqy]

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%

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

I'm glad you're agreeing with me now

But the unemployment is almost the same as 2008 July with fewer people in the work force in 2014

I thought you had agreed that there are more people in the Labor Force but the percent is lower because the population grew faster?
But in any case, I don't know why you think that has to do with the unemployment rate. The labor force participation rate is a percent of the population, while the unemployment rate is a percent of the labor force.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How many more people are in 66%

versus 62%

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

I'm glad you're agreeing with me now

But the unemployment is almost the same as 2008 July with fewer people in the work force in 2014

I thought you had agreed that there are more people in the Labor Force but the percent is lower because the population grew faster?
But in any case, I don't know why you think that has to do with the unemployment rate. The labor force participation rate is a percent of the population, while the unemployment rate is a percent of the labor force.

Dude you lack the comprehension skills try again

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Of course they do. It doesn't matter if you don't like them. They are what they are.

You're boring me with your fail son.

Why? The fail is all yours. Need I remind you, you moronically claimed more people were in the work force in July, 2008, than today?

You're failing and now you're pissed.

 

[pinqy]

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?

Non answer you need to go get better talking points and stop trying to sell shit

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Well of course not. He's showing the number of people working, but the rates you're citing are for the Labor Force, which is employed plus unemployed.

 

[pinqy]

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

I'm glad you're agreeing with me now

But the unemployment is almost the same as 2008 July with fewer people in the work force in 2014

I thought you had agreed that there are more people in the Labor Force but the percent is lower because the population grew faster?
But in any case, I don't know why you think that has to do with the unemployment rate. The labor force participation rate is a percent of the population, while the unemployment rate is a percent of the labor force.

Dude you lack the comprehension skills try again

You do know I worked at BLS for over a decade and I knowhow these numbers work.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

I'm glad you're agreeing with me now

But the unemployment is almost the same as 2008 July with fewer people in the work force in 2014

I thought you had agreed that there are more people in the Labor Force but the percent is lower because the population grew faster?
But in any case, I don't know why you think that has to do with the unemployment rate. The labor force participation rate is a percent of the population, while the unemployment rate is a percent of the labor force.

Dude you lack the comprehension skills try again

You do know I worked at BLS for over a decade and I knowhow these numbers work.

I don't give a **** what you say you have done, those numbers are bullshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Non answer you need to go get better talking points and stop trying to sell shit

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Well of course not. He's showing the number of people working, but the rates you're citing are for the Labor Force, which is employed plus unemployed.

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

 

[pinqy]

You're too stupid for words, biggulpernc ... you don't have to answer. Everyone here knows the answer. I'm just highlighting what a rightard you are.

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Well of course not. He's showing the number of people working, but the rates you're citing are for the Labor Force, which is employed plus unemployed.

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mush brain you're faltering

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Well of course not. He's showing the number of people working, but the rates you're citing are for the Labor Force, which is employed plus unemployed.

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary

.

I don't give a **** the numbers are bullshit.
Your math of 1+1 does not equal 5

 

[pinqy]

I'm glad you're agreeing with me now

But the unemployment is almost the same as 2008 July with fewer people in the work force in 2014

I thought you had agreed that there are more people in the Labor Force but the percent is lower because the population grew faster?
But in any case, I don't know why you think that has to do with the unemployment rate. The labor force participation rate is a percent of the population, while the unemployment rate is a percent of the labor force.

Dude you lack the comprehension skills try again

You do know I worked at BLS for over a decade and I knowhow these numbers work.

I don't give a **** what you say you have done, those numbers are bullshit.

They're from the BLS same as yours. You just don't seem to understand what they mean.
Come on, use some sense....which is bigger: 1% of 1,000,000 or 99% of 1,000?

 

[pinqy]

Spits the imbecile who thinks 145,532,000 is more than 146,600,000.

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Well of course not. He's showing the number of people working, but the rates you're citing are for the Labor Force, which is employed plus unemployed.

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary

.

I don't give a **** the numbers are bullshit.
Your math of 1+1 does not equal 5

Then show your math.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

those numbers don't support 66% versus 62% but do keep believing that shit you are making me laugh at your feeble ass

Well of course not. He's showing the number of people working, but the rates you're citing are for the Labor Force, which is employed plus unemployed.

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary

.

I don't give a **** the numbers are bullshit.
Your math of 1+1 does not equal 5

Then show your math.

You say you worked for the BLS? who else but you would go out of their way to make a smoke screen for the corrupted numbers of the BLS. I ain't showing you a god damn thing **** off you god damn traitor.

 

[pinqy]

Well of course not. He's showing the number of people working, but the rates you're citing are for the Labor Force, which is employed plus unemployed.

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary

.

I don't give a **** the numbers are bullshit.
Your math of 1+1 does not equal 5

Then show your math.

You say you worked for the BLS? who else but you would go out of their way to make a smoke screen for the corrupted numbers of the BLS. I ain't showing you a god damn thing **** off you god damn traitor.

The corrupted numbers like labor force participation rate?

 

[edthecynic]

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary

.

I don't give a **** the numbers are bullshit.
Your math of 1+1 does not equal 5

Then show your math.

You say you worked for the BLS? who else but you would go out of their way to make a smoke screen for the corrupted numbers of the BLS. I ain't showing you a god damn thing **** off you god damn traitor.

The corrupted numbers like labor force participation rate?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary

.

I don't give a **** the numbers are bullshit.
Your math of 1+1 does not equal 5

Then show your math.

You say you worked for the BLS? who else but you would go out of their way to make a smoke screen for the corrupted numbers of the BLS. I ain't showing you a god damn thing **** off you god damn traitor.

The corrupted numbers like labor force participation rate?

Stupid you are now irrelevant and nothing you say about unemployment should be trusted, since you say you work or worked for the BLS
**** off.

 

[Politico]

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%

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

I know it is silly. But I was really hoping that thirty pages in this thread would not get dumber. But it did.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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%

Depends on the denominator. As you pointed out, the population, which is the denominator, is bigger now.
So 62% of 248 million is bigger than 66% of 234 million

Fewer people in the population in 2008 than in 2014

I know it is silly. But I was really hoping that thirty pages in this thread would not get dumber. But it did.

The left does always achieve that goal

 

[Faun]

Well of course not. He's showing the number of people working, but the rates you're citing are for the Labor Force, which is employed plus unemployed.

go smoke some more crack dumb ass.

BLS Glossary

Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary

.

I don't give a **** the numbers are bullshit.
Your math of 1+1 does not equal 5

Then show your math.

You say you worked for the BLS? who else but you would go out of their way to make a smoke screen for the corrupted numbers of the BLS. I ain't showing you a god damn thing **** off you god damn traitor.

Why are you posting cooked numbers?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bush jacked the U-6 rate from 7.3%

Dear, liberalism caused the housing bubble, not Bush. If we had had capitalism rather than the massive soviet regulation that characterized the housing market it would have been 100% impossible. For example the Fed had to print the money needed to inflate the bubble for years. And that was just one of 132 soviet liberal regulations controls and programs that were anti-captitalist. Way over your head -right?

Do you understand?

What a shame your delusions are fantasy, eh? Here in the real world, Bush and Republicans created the bubble. Hell, they even took credit for it until it burst.

"Thanks to OUR policies, home ownership in America is at an all time high." <applause> - George Bush, RNC acceptance speech ​

dear, Bush was a liberal very happy to have the govt encourage ownership through massive interference in the free market.