What's the Liberal to Conservative Ratio Here?

[Pumpkin Row]

Did you posters or actual people posting and running multiple sock accounts (cough cough Bodecca and the Starkeys cough)?

Valerie Ravi, anybody?

Mal Manifold, anybody. Bueller?

Bueller?.. Bueller?... Bueller?

 

[Dr Grump]

But getting back to the OP. This board was started by, sold to, and currently run by, conservatives. The ones who started it were of the looney neocon type. Then Gunny ran it, and he was more or less normal when sober (there was somebody in between but they didn't last long - they were cons too). Then the latest lot are cons, but pretty normal...well, as normal as any con can be...

Most Business owners are cons. Go figure.
Most teachers are Liberals.
Those who can do, do, those who can't teach, those who can't teach administrate.

of course most business owners are cons....of course....

 

[Dr Grump]

Only if you count Stars and people who inherited their wealth. Of those who earned their wealth they are Conservatives.

Yeah, like Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker - Christian conservative whackjobs who got rich conning others.

I'll think you'll find Gates is a lib. As was Jobs.

 

[Dr Grump]

Socialist and Progressive are just different levels of completion for the same goal. The fact that you think they're different only goes to show that they've tricked you.

No, it just goes to show I know bullshit when I see it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Socialist and Progressive are just different levels of completion for the same goal. The fact that you think they're different only goes to show that they've tricked you.

No, it just goes to show I know bullshit when I see it. Nothing more, nothing less.

They both want absolute government power, and citizens that are just government property.

 

[Faun]

An interesting thing about job growth is that it counts government jobs, which doesn't expand the economy at all. They are paid for by taxpayers, and don't expand and create more jobs for more people. A private sector job expands across the US and creates more jobs to fulfill more demands. Here is a Funny thing, the vast majority of the jobs that have been created under President Obama have been government jobs. These include jobs there's no actual demand for, like the Solar and Wind industries, which are artificially propped up by the government, since they can't actually compete.

WOW!

That's like a 9.7 on the Richter scale of delusion.

Let me introduce you to reality, ok? Are ya sitting down? Because I don't want you to hurt yourself when you collapse into a heaping pile of sludge when you're shown just how insane you are....

Government jobs added by president since Truman (sorted in descending order by annualized growth and not factoring in population size)

Johnson ...... 2,725,000 ... 527,419
Nixon ........ 2,119,000 ... 379,522
Carter ....... 1,304,000 ... 326,000
Kennedy ........ 920,000 ... 324,706
Ford ........... 728,000 ... 301,241
Bush41 ....... 1,127,000 ... 281,750
Clinton ...... 1,934,000 ... 241,750
Eisenhower ... 1,770,000 ... 221,250
Bush43 ....... 1,744,000 ... 218,000
Reagan ....... 1,414,000 ... 176,750
Truman ......... 609,000 .... 91,350
Obama ......... -490,000 ... -66,818


All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted

Despite your lunacy that the vast majority of jobs created under Obama have been government jobs, the stark reality, a realm from which you are clearly divorced, Obama is the only president over the last 70+ years to actually decrease government jobs. Do you even have a clue how low the unemployment rate would be right now had Obama added a couple of million government jobs, as some other presidents have done?

This is exactly the reason the proportions of Liberal vs Conservative doesn't matter -- by large, Conservatives are far more brain-dead.

 

[SYTFE]

How about some more votes here? Come on y'all. Let's get this party started.

separate Libertarians and Anarchist and I'll vote.

Just vote. I'll remember that you are an anarchist. Don't worry about it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

An interesting thing about job growth is that it counts government jobs, which doesn't expand the economy at all. They are paid for by taxpayers, and don't expand and create more jobs for more people. A private sector job expands across the US and creates more jobs to fulfill more demands. Here is a Funny thing, the vast majority of the jobs that have been created under President Obama have been government jobs. These include jobs there's no actual demand for, like the Solar and Wind industries, which are artificially propped up by the government, since they can't actually compete.

WOW!

That's like a 9.7 on the Richter scale of delusion.

Let me introduce you to reality, ok? Are ya sitting down? Because I don't want you to hurt yourself when you collapse into a heaping pile of sludge when you're shown just how insane you are....

Government jobs added by president since Truman (sorted in descending order by annualized growth and not factoring in population size)

Johnson ...... 2,725,000 ... 527,419
Nixon ........ 2,119,000 ... 379,522
Carter ....... 1,304,000 ... 326,000
Kennedy ........ 920,000 ... 324,706
Ford ........... 728,000 ... 301,241
Bush41 ....... 1,127,000 ... 281,750
Clinton ...... 1,934,000 ... 241,750
Eisenhower ... 1,770,000 ... 221,250
Bush43 ....... 1,744,000 ... 218,000
Reagan ....... 1,414,000 ... 176,750
Truman ......... 609,000 .... 91,350
Obama ......... -490,000 ... -66,818


All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted

Despite your lunacy that the vast majority of jobs created under Obama have been government jobs, the stark reality, a realm from which you are clearly divorced, Obama is the only president over the last 70+ years to actually decrease government jobs. Do you even have a clue how low the unemployment rate would be right now had Obama added a couple of million government jobs, as some other presidents have done?

This is exactly the reason the proportions of Liberal vs Conservative doesn't matter -- by large, Conservatives are far more brain-dead.

Okay, you're right, I got carried away and exaggerated the amount of government job Obama has been wasting taxpayer dollars on. On the other hand, in my rush to reply, I hadn't realized that the chart you gave us compared Obama's economy to the worst in recent history. I also neglected to remember that the economy is always growing, and that government blunders only really slow that growth, not stop it completely in most cases. That pointed out, the next thing is that jobs created in the private sector cannot be helped along by the Federal Government, except by getting rid of restrictions and lowering business tax rates. The fact here is that Obama actually increased regulations and business tax rates, and that what it did was slow the growth we'd have already been getting, do to effects of the recession subsiding.

Now, I'm sure you'd love to tell me just how wrong I am for claiming that the massive taxes on businesses, and forced benefits for employees slows economic growth, but tell me how much more likely you are to buy something with less money. Well, that's a rhetorical question, actually, because I know that anyone who doesn't like being in debt would be less likely to spend money when they have less. No, I'm not saying people are being fired because of it(They could be), I'm saying recovery is slowed significantly by the massive tax per employee, especially with larger businesses, since there's an extra added tax at fifty employees.

So, yeah, I guess congrats to Obama for failing to COMPLETELY stop recovery?
FRB: Beige Book -- October 16, 2013
Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy


Though, to be fair, if you really wanted to see the effects we're getting from Obamacare, you could check the Missing Worker Rate, real Unemployment Rate, and Labor Force Participation Rate. Which actually shows the decline continuing through Obama's entire presidency: Labor Force Participation

May have actually steepened, hard to tell.
People not in Labor Force:

True Unemployment:

But yeah, you can keep holding on to your job growth figures, pretending the fact that it hasn't halted entirely is something to be proud of. More than Bush? Uhm yay?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

How about some more votes here? Come on y'all. Let's get this party started.

separate Libertarians and Anarchist and I'll vote.

Just vote. I'll remember that you are an anarchist. Don't worry about it.

Says everybody who wants to live in Russia.

 

[Faun]

An interesting thing about job growth is that it counts government jobs, which doesn't expand the economy at all. They are paid for by taxpayers, and don't expand and create more jobs for more people. A private sector job expands across the US and creates more jobs to fulfill more demands. Here is a Funny thing, the vast majority of the jobs that have been created under President Obama have been government jobs. These include jobs there's no actual demand for, like the Solar and Wind industries, which are artificially propped up by the government, since they can't actually compete.

WOW!

That's like a 9.7 on the Richter scale of delusion.

Let me introduce you to reality, ok? Are ya sitting down? Because I don't want you to hurt yourself when you collapse into a heaping pile of sludge when you're shown just how insane you are....

Government jobs added by president since Truman (sorted in descending order by annualized growth and not factoring in population size)

Johnson ...... 2,725,000 ... 527,419
Nixon ........ 2,119,000 ... 379,522
Carter ....... 1,304,000 ... 326,000
Kennedy ........ 920,000 ... 324,706
Ford ........... 728,000 ... 301,241
Bush41 ....... 1,127,000 ... 281,750
Clinton ...... 1,934,000 ... 241,750
Eisenhower ... 1,770,000 ... 221,250
Bush43 ....... 1,744,000 ... 218,000
Reagan ....... 1,414,000 ... 176,750
Truman ......... 609,000 .... 91,350
Obama ......... -490,000 ... -66,818


All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted

Despite your lunacy that the vast majority of jobs created under Obama have been government jobs, the stark reality, a realm from which you are clearly divorced, Obama is the only president over the last 70+ years to actually decrease government jobs. Do you even have a clue how low the unemployment rate would be right now had Obama added a couple of million government jobs, as some other presidents have done?

This is exactly the reason the proportions of Liberal vs Conservative doesn't matter -- by large, Conservatives are far more brain-dead.

Okay, you're right, I got carried away and exaggerated the amount of government job Obama has been wasting taxpayer dollars on. On the other hand, in my rush to reply, I hadn't realized that the chart you gave us compared Obama's economy to the worst in recent history. I also neglected to remember that the economy is always growing, and that government blunders only really slow that growth, not stop it completely in most cases. That pointed out, the next thing is that jobs created in the private sector cannot be helped along by the Federal Government, except by getting rid of restrictions and lowering business tax rates. The fact here is that Obama actually increased regulations and business tax rates, and that what it did was slow the growth we'd have already been getting, do to effects of the recession subsiding.

Now, I'm sure you'd love to tell me just how wrong I am for claiming that the massive taxes on businesses, and forced benefits for employees slows economic growth, but tell me how much more likely you are to buy something with less money. Well, that's a rhetorical question, actually, because I know that anyone who doesn't like being in debt would be less likely to spend money when they have less. No, I'm not saying people are being fired because of it(They could be), I'm saying recovery is slowed significantly by the massive tax per employee, especially with larger businesses, since there's an extra added tax at fifty employees.

So, yeah, I guess congrats to Obama for failing to COMPLETELY stop recovery?
FRB: Beige Book -- October 16, 2013
Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy


Though, to be fair, if you really wanted to see the effects we're getting from Obamacare, you could check the Missing Worker Rate, real Unemployment Rate, and Labor Force Participation Rate. Which actually shows the decline continuing through Obama's entire presidency: Labor Force Participation

May have actually steepened, hard to tell.
People not in Labor Force:

True Unemployment:

But yeah, you can keep holding on to your job growth figures, pretending the fact that it hasn't halted entirely is something to be proud of. More than Bush? Uhm yay?

Oh, noooo.... in typical brain-dead conservative fashion, the rightarded wingnut retreats to the warmth of their security blanket known as the labor force participation rate. You ran to it faster than most; but then what else ya got really after the *****-slapping I rendered with the back side of my pimp hand? Ok, so here we go.... if the labor force participation rate is sooo bad .... but it's higher now than at any time prior to 1978 -- how did we ever have a good economy before then??

 

[Pumpkin Row]

An interesting thing about job growth is that it counts government jobs, which doesn't expand the economy at all. They are paid for by taxpayers, and don't expand and create more jobs for more people. A private sector job expands across the US and creates more jobs to fulfill more demands. Here is a Funny thing, the vast majority of the jobs that have been created under President Obama have been government jobs. These include jobs there's no actual demand for, like the Solar and Wind industries, which are artificially propped up by the government, since they can't actually compete.

WOW!

That's like a 9.7 on the Richter scale of delusion.

Let me introduce you to reality, ok? Are ya sitting down? Because I don't want you to hurt yourself when you collapse into a heaping pile of sludge when you're shown just how insane you are....

Government jobs added by president since Truman (sorted in descending order by annualized growth and not factoring in population size)

Johnson ...... 2,725,000 ... 527,419
Nixon ........ 2,119,000 ... 379,522
Carter ....... 1,304,000 ... 326,000
Kennedy ........ 920,000 ... 324,706
Ford ........... 728,000 ... 301,241
Bush41 ....... 1,127,000 ... 281,750
Clinton ...... 1,934,000 ... 241,750
Eisenhower ... 1,770,000 ... 221,250
Bush43 ....... 1,744,000 ... 218,000
Reagan ....... 1,414,000 ... 176,750
Truman ......... 609,000 .... 91,350
Obama ......... -490,000 ... -66,818


All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted

Despite your lunacy that the vast majority of jobs created under Obama have been government jobs, the stark reality, a realm from which you are clearly divorced, Obama is the only president over the last 70+ years to actually decrease government jobs. Do you even have a clue how low the unemployment rate would be right now had Obama added a couple of million government jobs, as some other presidents have done?

This is exactly the reason the proportions of Liberal vs Conservative doesn't matter -- by large, Conservatives are far more brain-dead.

Okay, you're right, I got carried away and exaggerated the amount of government job Obama has been wasting taxpayer dollars on. On the other hand, in my rush to reply, I hadn't realized that the chart you gave us compared Obama's economy to the worst in recent history. I also neglected to remember that the economy is always growing, and that government blunders only really slow that growth, not stop it completely in most cases. That pointed out, the next thing is that jobs created in the private sector cannot be helped along by the Federal Government, except by getting rid of restrictions and lowering business tax rates. The fact here is that Obama actually increased regulations and business tax rates, and that what it did was slow the growth we'd have already been getting, do to effects of the recession subsiding.

Now, I'm sure you'd love to tell me just how wrong I am for claiming that the massive taxes on businesses, and forced benefits for employees slows economic growth, but tell me how much more likely you are to buy something with less money. Well, that's a rhetorical question, actually, because I know that anyone who doesn't like being in debt would be less likely to spend money when they have less. No, I'm not saying people are being fired because of it(They could be), I'm saying recovery is slowed significantly by the massive tax per employee, especially with larger businesses, since there's an extra added tax at fifty employees.

So, yeah, I guess congrats to Obama for failing to COMPLETELY stop recovery?
FRB: Beige Book -- October 16, 2013
Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy


Though, to be fair, if you really wanted to see the effects we're getting from Obamacare, you could check the Missing Worker Rate, real Unemployment Rate, and Labor Force Participation Rate. Which actually shows the decline continuing through Obama's entire presidency: Labor Force Participation

May have actually steepened, hard to tell.
People not in Labor Force:

True Unemployment:

But yeah, you can keep holding on to your job growth figures, pretending the fact that it hasn't halted entirely is something to be proud of. More than Bush? Uhm yay?

Oh, noooo.... in typical brain-dead conservative fashion, the rightarded wingnut retreats to the warmth of their security blanket known as the labor force participation rate. You ran to it faster than most; but then what else ya got really after the *****-slapping I rendered with the back side of my pimp hand? Ok, so here we go.... if the labor force participation rate is sooo bad .... but it's higher now than at any time prior to 1978 -- how did we ever have a good economy before then??

You know, I'd probably be wondering why our economy was worse then than it is now, also, if I didn't remember the business tax rate was 70-90% under Eisenhower(Slowly Economic expansion), that the US had just suffered from the Great Depression not long before that, and the Vietnam War that had just ended, all coupled with the fact that Jimmy Carter was greatly slowing economic recovery from those things. I also didn't just give you the Labor Force Participation rate, I gave you the People Out of the Labor Force, the real Unemployment Rate, and now Missing Workers:

 

[Faun]

An interesting thing about job growth is that it counts government jobs, which doesn't expand the economy at all. They are paid for by taxpayers, and don't expand and create more jobs for more people. A private sector job expands across the US and creates more jobs to fulfill more demands. Here is a Funny thing, the vast majority of the jobs that have been created under President Obama have been government jobs. These include jobs there's no actual demand for, like the Solar and Wind industries, which are artificially propped up by the government, since they can't actually compete.

WOW!

That's like a 9.7 on the Richter scale of delusion.

Let me introduce you to reality, ok? Are ya sitting down? Because I don't want you to hurt yourself when you collapse into a heaping pile of sludge when you're shown just how insane you are....

Government jobs added by president since Truman (sorted in descending order by annualized growth and not factoring in population size)

Johnson ...... 2,725,000 ... 527,419
Nixon ........ 2,119,000 ... 379,522
Carter ....... 1,304,000 ... 326,000
Kennedy ........ 920,000 ... 324,706
Ford ........... 728,000 ... 301,241
Bush41 ....... 1,127,000 ... 281,750
Clinton ...... 1,934,000 ... 241,750
Eisenhower ... 1,770,000 ... 221,250
Bush43 ....... 1,744,000 ... 218,000
Reagan ....... 1,414,000 ... 176,750
Truman ......... 609,000 .... 91,350
Obama ......... -490,000 ... -66,818


All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted

Despite your lunacy that the vast majority of jobs created under Obama have been government jobs, the stark reality, a realm from which you are clearly divorced, Obama is the only president over the last 70+ years to actually decrease government jobs. Do you even have a clue how low the unemployment rate would be right now had Obama added a couple of million government jobs, as some other presidents have done?

This is exactly the reason the proportions of Liberal vs Conservative doesn't matter -- by large, Conservatives are far more brain-dead.

Okay, you're right, I got carried away and exaggerated the amount of government job Obama has been wasting taxpayer dollars on. On the other hand, in my rush to reply, I hadn't realized that the chart you gave us compared Obama's economy to the worst in recent history. I also neglected to remember that the economy is always growing, and that government blunders only really slow that growth, not stop it completely in most cases. That pointed out, the next thing is that jobs created in the private sector cannot be helped along by the Federal Government, except by getting rid of restrictions and lowering business tax rates. The fact here is that Obama actually increased regulations and business tax rates, and that what it did was slow the growth we'd have already been getting, do to effects of the recession subsiding.

Now, I'm sure you'd love to tell me just how wrong I am for claiming that the massive taxes on businesses, and forced benefits for employees slows economic growth, but tell me how much more likely you are to buy something with less money. Well, that's a rhetorical question, actually, because I know that anyone who doesn't like being in debt would be less likely to spend money when they have less. No, I'm not saying people are being fired because of it(They could be), I'm saying recovery is slowed significantly by the massive tax per employee, especially with larger businesses, since there's an extra added tax at fifty employees.

So, yeah, I guess congrats to Obama for failing to COMPLETELY stop recovery?
FRB: Beige Book -- October 16, 2013
Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy


Though, to be fair, if you really wanted to see the effects we're getting from Obamacare, you could check the Missing Worker Rate, real Unemployment Rate, and Labor Force Participation Rate. Which actually shows the decline continuing through Obama's entire presidency: Labor Force Participation

May have actually steepened, hard to tell.
People not in Labor Force:

True Unemployment:

But yeah, you can keep holding on to your job growth figures, pretending the fact that it hasn't halted entirely is something to be proud of. More than Bush? Uhm yay?

Oh, noooo.... in typical brain-dead conservative fashion, the rightarded wingnut retreats to the warmth of their security blanket known as the labor force participation rate. You ran to it faster than most; but then what else ya got really after the *****-slapping I rendered with the back side of my pimp hand? Ok, so here we go.... if the labor force participation rate is sooo bad .... but it's higher now than at any time prior to 1978 -- how did we ever have a good economy before then??

You know, I'd probably be wondering why our economy was worse then than it is now, also, if I didn't remember the business tax rate was 70-90% under Eisenhower(Slowly Economic expansion), that the US had just suffered from the Great Depression not long before that, and the Vietnam War that had just ended, all coupled with the fact that Jimmy Carter was greatly slowing economic recovery from those things. I also didn't just give you the Labor Force Participation rate, I gave you the People Out of the Labor Force, the real Unemployment Rate, and now Missing Workers:

That's a lot of words to not answer my question. How did we ever have a good economy before Reagan with a labor force participation rate that was lower than it is now? The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now. How was that possible if the labor force participation rate meant anything in terms of the health of the economy?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

An interesting thing about job growth is that it counts government jobs, which doesn't expand the economy at all. They are paid for by taxpayers, and don't expand and create more jobs for more people. A private sector job expands across the US and creates more jobs to fulfill more demands. Here is a Funny thing, the vast majority of the jobs that have been created under President Obama have been government jobs. These include jobs there's no actual demand for, like the Solar and Wind industries, which are artificially propped up by the government, since they can't actually compete.

WOW!

That's like a 9.7 on the Richter scale of delusion.

Let me introduce you to reality, ok? Are ya sitting down? Because I don't want you to hurt yourself when you collapse into a heaping pile of sludge when you're shown just how insane you are....

Government jobs added by president since Truman (sorted in descending order by annualized growth and not factoring in population size)

Johnson ...... 2,725,000 ... 527,419
Nixon ........ 2,119,000 ... 379,522
Carter ....... 1,304,000 ... 326,000
Kennedy ........ 920,000 ... 324,706
Ford ........... 728,000 ... 301,241
Bush41 ....... 1,127,000 ... 281,750
Clinton ...... 1,934,000 ... 241,750
Eisenhower ... 1,770,000 ... 221,250
Bush43 ....... 1,744,000 ... 218,000
Reagan ....... 1,414,000 ... 176,750
Truman ......... 609,000 .... 91,350
Obama ......... -490,000 ... -66,818


All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted

Despite your lunacy that the vast majority of jobs created under Obama have been government jobs, the stark reality, a realm from which you are clearly divorced, Obama is the only president over the last 70+ years to actually decrease government jobs. Do you even have a clue how low the unemployment rate would be right now had Obama added a couple of million government jobs, as some other presidents have done?

This is exactly the reason the proportions of Liberal vs Conservative doesn't matter -- by large, Conservatives are far more brain-dead.

Okay, you're right, I got carried away and exaggerated the amount of government job Obama has been wasting taxpayer dollars on. On the other hand, in my rush to reply, I hadn't realized that the chart you gave us compared Obama's economy to the worst in recent history. I also neglected to remember that the economy is always growing, and that government blunders only really slow that growth, not stop it completely in most cases. That pointed out, the next thing is that jobs created in the private sector cannot be helped along by the Federal Government, except by getting rid of restrictions and lowering business tax rates. The fact here is that Obama actually increased regulations and business tax rates, and that what it did was slow the growth we'd have already been getting, do to effects of the recession subsiding.

Now, I'm sure you'd love to tell me just how wrong I am for claiming that the massive taxes on businesses, and forced benefits for employees slows economic growth, but tell me how much more likely you are to buy something with less money. Well, that's a rhetorical question, actually, because I know that anyone who doesn't like being in debt would be less likely to spend money when they have less. No, I'm not saying people are being fired because of it(They could be), I'm saying recovery is slowed significantly by the massive tax per employee, especially with larger businesses, since there's an extra added tax at fifty employees.

So, yeah, I guess congrats to Obama for failing to COMPLETELY stop recovery?
FRB: Beige Book -- October 16, 2013
Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy


Though, to be fair, if you really wanted to see the effects we're getting from Obamacare, you could check the Missing Worker Rate, real Unemployment Rate, and Labor Force Participation Rate. Which actually shows the decline continuing through Obama's entire presidency: Labor Force Participation

May have actually steepened, hard to tell.
People not in Labor Force:

True Unemployment:

But yeah, you can keep holding on to your job growth figures, pretending the fact that it hasn't halted entirely is something to be proud of. More than Bush? Uhm yay?

Oh, noooo.... in typical brain-dead conservative fashion, the rightarded wingnut retreats to the warmth of their security blanket known as the labor force participation rate. You ran to it faster than most; but then what else ya got really after the *****-slapping I rendered with the back side of my pimp hand? Ok, so here we go.... if the labor force participation rate is sooo bad .... but it's higher now than at any time prior to 1978 -- how did we ever have a good economy before then??

You know, I'd probably be wondering why our economy was worse then than it is now, also, if I didn't remember the business tax rate was 70-90% under Eisenhower(Slowly Economic expansion), that the US had just suffered from the Great Depression not long before that, and the Vietnam War that had just ended, all coupled with the fact that Jimmy Carter was greatly slowing economic recovery from those things. I also didn't just give you the Labor Force Participation rate, I gave you the People Out of the Labor Force, the real Unemployment Rate, and now Missing Workers:

That's a lot of words to not answer my question. How did we ever have a good economy before Reagan with a labor force participation rate that was lower than it is now? The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now. How was that possible if the labor force participation rate meant anything in terms of the health of the economy?

It wasn't good in the 50s, people tell us that it was, but it was not. The unemployment rate fluctuated hard, and when the economy tried to recover, Eisenhower increased the business tax AGAIN to keep unemployment up. In the 60s, we really didn't have a recovering economy until Kennedy. One of the many reasons he's one of the few Democrats I respect, he knew how the economy worked, and cared about the American people.

The Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate, and Missing Worker Rate are used to figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding. In cases like this, when we just came out of recession, it's used to determine how quickly we're recovering.

 

[Faun]

WOW!

That's like a 9.7 on the Richter scale of delusion.

Let me introduce you to reality, ok? Are ya sitting down? Because I don't want you to hurt yourself when you collapse into a heaping pile of sludge when you're shown just how insane you are....

Government jobs added by president since Truman (sorted in descending order by annualized growth and not factoring in population size)

Johnson ...... 2,725,000 ... 527,419
Nixon ........ 2,119,000 ... 379,522
Carter ....... 1,304,000 ... 326,000
Kennedy ........ 920,000 ... 324,706
Ford ........... 728,000 ... 301,241
Bush41 ....... 1,127,000 ... 281,750
Clinton ...... 1,934,000 ... 241,750
Eisenhower ... 1,770,000 ... 221,250
Bush43 ....... 1,744,000 ... 218,000
Reagan ....... 1,414,000 ... 176,750
Truman ......... 609,000 .... 91,350
Obama ......... -490,000 ... -66,818


All employees, thousands, government, seasonally adjusted

Despite your lunacy that the vast majority of jobs created under Obama have been government jobs, the stark reality, a realm from which you are clearly divorced, Obama is the only president over the last 70+ years to actually decrease government jobs. Do you even have a clue how low the unemployment rate would be right now had Obama added a couple of million government jobs, as some other presidents have done?

This is exactly the reason the proportions of Liberal vs Conservative doesn't matter -- by large, Conservatives are far more brain-dead.

Okay, you're right, I got carried away and exaggerated the amount of government job Obama has been wasting taxpayer dollars on. On the other hand, in my rush to reply, I hadn't realized that the chart you gave us compared Obama's economy to the worst in recent history. I also neglected to remember that the economy is always growing, and that government blunders only really slow that growth, not stop it completely in most cases. That pointed out, the next thing is that jobs created in the private sector cannot be helped along by the Federal Government, except by getting rid of restrictions and lowering business tax rates. The fact here is that Obama actually increased regulations and business tax rates, and that what it did was slow the growth we'd have already been getting, do to effects of the recession subsiding.

Now, I'm sure you'd love to tell me just how wrong I am for claiming that the massive taxes on businesses, and forced benefits for employees slows economic growth, but tell me how much more likely you are to buy something with less money. Well, that's a rhetorical question, actually, because I know that anyone who doesn't like being in debt would be less likely to spend money when they have less. No, I'm not saying people are being fired because of it(They could be), I'm saying recovery is slowed significantly by the massive tax per employee, especially with larger businesses, since there's an extra added tax at fifty employees.

So, yeah, I guess congrats to Obama for failing to COMPLETELY stop recovery?
FRB: Beige Book -- October 16, 2013
Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy


Though, to be fair, if you really wanted to see the effects we're getting from Obamacare, you could check the Missing Worker Rate, real Unemployment Rate, and Labor Force Participation Rate. Which actually shows the decline continuing through Obama's entire presidency: Labor Force Participation

May have actually steepened, hard to tell.
People not in Labor Force:

True Unemployment:

But yeah, you can keep holding on to your job growth figures, pretending the fact that it hasn't halted entirely is something to be proud of. More than Bush? Uhm yay?

Oh, noooo.... in typical brain-dead conservative fashion, the rightarded wingnut retreats to the warmth of their security blanket known as the labor force participation rate. You ran to it faster than most; but then what else ya got really after the *****-slapping I rendered with the back side of my pimp hand? Ok, so here we go.... if the labor force participation rate is sooo bad .... but it's higher now than at any time prior to 1978 -- how did we ever have a good economy before then??

You know, I'd probably be wondering why our economy was worse then than it is now, also, if I didn't remember the business tax rate was 70-90% under Eisenhower(Slowly Economic expansion), that the US had just suffered from the Great Depression not long before that, and the Vietnam War that had just ended, all coupled with the fact that Jimmy Carter was greatly slowing economic recovery from those things. I also didn't just give you the Labor Force Participation rate, I gave you the People Out of the Labor Force, the real Unemployment Rate, and now Missing Workers:

That's a lot of words to not answer my question. How did we ever have a good economy before Reagan with a labor force participation rate that was lower than it is now? The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now. How was that possible if the labor force participation rate meant anything in terms of the health of the economy?

It wasn't good in the 50s, people tell us that it was, but it was not. The unemployment rate fluctuated hard, and when the economy tried to recover, Eisenhower increased the business tax AGAIN to keep unemployment up. In the 60s, we really didn't have a recovering economy until Kennedy. One of the many reasons he's one of the few Democrats I respect, he knew how the economy worked, and cared about the American people.

Well I didn't expect you to make any sense and you didn't disappoint.

The unemployment rate from July/1950 through January/1954 was never over 5%. That's 3½ years, during which time, it was mostly under 4% and sometimes under 3%.

If that's not a good job market to you, I don't know what is?

The Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate, and Missing Worker Rate are used to figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding. In cases like this, when we just came out of recession, it's used to determine how quickly we're recovering.

Oh, and what role does the labor force participation rate play in that indicator?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Okay, you're right, I got carried away and exaggerated the amount of government job Obama has been wasting taxpayer dollars on. On the other hand, in my rush to reply, I hadn't realized that the chart you gave us compared Obama's economy to the worst in recent history. I also neglected to remember that the economy is always growing, and that government blunders only really slow that growth, not stop it completely in most cases. That pointed out, the next thing is that jobs created in the private sector cannot be helped along by the Federal Government, except by getting rid of restrictions and lowering business tax rates. The fact here is that Obama actually increased regulations and business tax rates, and that what it did was slow the growth we'd have already been getting, do to effects of the recession subsiding.

Now, I'm sure you'd love to tell me just how wrong I am for claiming that the massive taxes on businesses, and forced benefits for employees slows economic growth, but tell me how much more likely you are to buy something with less money. Well, that's a rhetorical question, actually, because I know that anyone who doesn't like being in debt would be less likely to spend money when they have less. No, I'm not saying people are being fired because of it(They could be), I'm saying recovery is slowed significantly by the massive tax per employee, especially with larger businesses, since there's an extra added tax at fifty employees.

So, yeah, I guess congrats to Obama for failing to COMPLETELY stop recovery?
FRB: Beige Book -- October 16, 2013
Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy


Though, to be fair, if you really wanted to see the effects we're getting from Obamacare, you could check the Missing Worker Rate, real Unemployment Rate, and Labor Force Participation Rate. Which actually shows the decline continuing through Obama's entire presidency: Labor Force Participation

May have actually steepened, hard to tell.
People not in Labor Force:

True Unemployment:

But yeah, you can keep holding on to your job growth figures, pretending the fact that it hasn't halted entirely is something to be proud of. More than Bush? Uhm yay?

Oh, noooo.... in typical brain-dead conservative fashion, the rightarded wingnut retreats to the warmth of their security blanket known as the labor force participation rate. You ran to it faster than most; but then what else ya got really after the *****-slapping I rendered with the back side of my pimp hand? Ok, so here we go.... if the labor force participation rate is sooo bad .... but it's higher now than at any time prior to 1978 -- how did we ever have a good economy before then??

You know, I'd probably be wondering why our economy was worse then than it is now, also, if I didn't remember the business tax rate was 70-90% under Eisenhower(Slowly Economic expansion), that the US had just suffered from the Great Depression not long before that, and the Vietnam War that had just ended, all coupled with the fact that Jimmy Carter was greatly slowing economic recovery from those things. I also didn't just give you the Labor Force Participation rate, I gave you the People Out of the Labor Force, the real Unemployment Rate, and now Missing Workers:

That's a lot of words to not answer my question. How did we ever have a good economy before Reagan with a labor force participation rate that was lower than it is now? The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now. How was that possible if the labor force participation rate meant anything in terms of the health of the economy?

It wasn't good in the 50s, people tell us that it was, but it was not. The unemployment rate fluctuated hard, and when the economy tried to recover, Eisenhower increased the business tax AGAIN to keep unemployment up. In the 60s, we really didn't have a recovering economy until Kennedy. One of the many reasons he's one of the few Democrats I respect, he knew how the economy worked, and cared about the American people.

Well I didn't expect you to make any sense and you didn't disappoint.

The unemployment rate from July/1950 through January/1954 was never over 5%. That's 3½ years, during which time, it was mostly under 4% and sometimes under 3%.

If that's not a good job market to you, I don't know what is?

The Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate, and Missing Worker Rate are used to figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding. In cases like this, when we just came out of recession, it's used to determine how quickly we're recovering.

Oh, and what role does the labor force participation rate play in that indicator?

The Labor Force Participation was also roughly 60%.

The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now.

Just realized I didn't answer this question.
The Labor Force Participation is a percentage. Also note that our population now is roughly double the population they had back then. What this means is that while they have a lower percentage of people in the Labor Force, the number that the percentage represents for our current participation for today is much higher. Because of our population, we have a much higher number of people out of the Labor Force.

 

[Faun]

Oh, noooo.... in typical brain-dead conservative fashion, the rightarded wingnut retreats to the warmth of their security blanket known as the labor force participation rate. You ran to it faster than most; but then what else ya got really after the *****-slapping I rendered with the back side of my pimp hand? Ok, so here we go.... if the labor force participation rate is sooo bad .... but it's higher now than at any time prior to 1978 -- how did we ever have a good economy before then??

You know, I'd probably be wondering why our economy was worse then than it is now, also, if I didn't remember the business tax rate was 70-90% under Eisenhower(Slowly Economic expansion), that the US had just suffered from the Great Depression not long before that, and the Vietnam War that had just ended, all coupled with the fact that Jimmy Carter was greatly slowing economic recovery from those things. I also didn't just give you the Labor Force Participation rate, I gave you the People Out of the Labor Force, the real Unemployment Rate, and now Missing Workers:

That's a lot of words to not answer my question. How did we ever have a good economy before Reagan with a labor force participation rate that was lower than it is now? The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now. How was that possible if the labor force participation rate meant anything in terms of the health of the economy?

It wasn't good in the 50s, people tell us that it was, but it was not. The unemployment rate fluctuated hard, and when the economy tried to recover, Eisenhower increased the business tax AGAIN to keep unemployment up. In the 60s, we really didn't have a recovering economy until Kennedy. One of the many reasons he's one of the few Democrats I respect, he knew how the economy worked, and cared about the American people.

Well I didn't expect you to make any sense and you didn't disappoint.

The unemployment rate from July/1950 through January/1954 was never over 5%. That's 3½ years, during which time, it was mostly under 4% and sometimes under 3%.

If that's not a good job market to you, I don't know what is?

The Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate, and Missing Worker Rate are used to figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding. In cases like this, when we just came out of recession, it's used to determine how quickly we're recovering.

Oh, and what role does the labor force participation rate play in that indicator?

The Labor Force Participation was also roughly 60%.

The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now.

Just realized I didn't answer this question.
The Labor Force Participation is a percentage. Also note that our population now is roughly double the population they had back then. What this means is that while they have a lower percentage of people in the Labor Force, the number that the percentage represents for our current participation for today is much higher. Because of our population, we have a much higher number of people out of the Labor Force.

My G-d, it's like I'm talking to a 4 year old.

You said the labor force participation rate, among others, is used to "figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding."

Which naturally led to the question.... how does the labor force participation rate do that?

And you idiotically respond with stating the labor force participation rate was lower in the 50's and 60's because the population was lower.

You then extrapolate from that, that the labor force participation rate is higher now than it was then because more people are out of the labor force.

That unbelievably retarded response aside, you still didn't answer the question.... how does that indicate how "quickly or slowly the economy is expanding?"

Again, keeping in mind that we had lower rates during good economies and higher rates among bad economies.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You know, I'd probably be wondering why our economy was worse then than it is now, also, if I didn't remember the business tax rate was 70-90% under Eisenhower(Slowly Economic expansion), that the US had just suffered from the Great Depression not long before that, and the Vietnam War that had just ended, all coupled with the fact that Jimmy Carter was greatly slowing economic recovery from those things. I also didn't just give you the Labor Force Participation rate, I gave you the People Out of the Labor Force, the real Unemployment Rate, and now Missing Workers:

That's a lot of words to not answer my question. How did we ever have a good economy before Reagan with a labor force participation rate that was lower than it is now? The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now. How was that possible if the labor force participation rate meant anything in terms of the health of the economy?

It wasn't good in the 50s, people tell us that it was, but it was not. The unemployment rate fluctuated hard, and when the economy tried to recover, Eisenhower increased the business tax AGAIN to keep unemployment up. In the 60s, we really didn't have a recovering economy until Kennedy. One of the many reasons he's one of the few Democrats I respect, he knew how the economy worked, and cared about the American people.

Well I didn't expect you to make any sense and you didn't disappoint.

The unemployment rate from July/1950 through January/1954 was never over 5%. That's 3½ years, during which time, it was mostly under 4% and sometimes under 3%.

If that's not a good job market to you, I don't know what is?

The Labor Force Participation Rate, Unemployment Rate, and Missing Worker Rate are used to figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding. In cases like this, when we just came out of recession, it's used to determine how quickly we're recovering.

Oh, and what role does the labor force participation rate play in that indicator?

The Labor Force Participation was also roughly 60%.

The economy for much of the 50's and 60's was good and yet the labor force participation rate was lower than it is now.

Just realized I didn't answer this question.
The Labor Force Participation is a percentage. Also note that our population now is roughly double the population they had back then. What this means is that while they have a lower percentage of people in the Labor Force, the number that the percentage represents for our current participation for today is much higher. Because of our population, we have a much higher number of people out of the Labor Force.

My G-d, it's like I'm talking to a 4 year old.

You said the labor force participation rate, among others, is used to "figure out how quickly or slowly the economy is expanding."

Which naturally led to the question.... how does the labor force participation rate do that?

And you idiotically respond with stating the labor force participation rate was lower in the 50's and 60's because the population was lower.

You then extrapolate from that, that the labor force participation rate is higher now than it was then because more people are out of the labor force.

No, you're just incompetent so you didn't understand what I said. I said that with a higher population, the NUMBER that the PERCENTAGE represents is higher. Like 50% of 100 is more than 50% of 10. Our population in 2015 was estimated 320,090,857. Our population in 1950 was estimated 150,697,361. In the 1950s, the Labor Force Participation was roughly 59%, and in 2015, it was roughly 63%. The Unemployment rate now is 9%(28,808,177) and the Unemployment Rate in 1953 was about 4%(6,027,894). What I'm explaining is that the people out of the Labor Force, despite the participation now being higher, is that the people OUT of the Labor Force is higher because the percentages now represent a larger amount of people. This means that when the rate drops, people are losing their jobs at a significantly higher rate. This means that when it's low, like it is now, that's a significantly worse thing. Which means that our 9% unemployment now is much worse than if we had 9% unemployment before. To make the percentage of unemployment that high, you need a significantly higher number of people to lose their job, same with the Labor Force Participation being low.

That unbelievably retarded response aside, you still didn't answer the question.... how does that indicate how "quickly or slowly the economy is expanding?"

Again, keeping in mind that we had lower rates during good economies and higher rates among bad economies.

It's a rate. If people are being hired at a higher rate, it means businesses are expanding and hiring more people to meet more of a demand in different areas of the US. If the Private Sector is expanding, and people are being hired, then the economy is doing well, because the Private Sector is the most important component in the Economy. If Businesses are expanding, and people are being hired, it means that people are making money, which is what we want.

 

[Oldstyle]

Just curious, seems fairly unbalanced based on my activity at other forums. I'd guess it's about 70% conservative, 30% liberal. And a few libertarians here scattering about trying to make sense of the world. Can't forget about them! They're special too.

It might also be that the conservatives are simply more vocal in general. They seem to have this need to post every passing thought that they hear from someone else, pretending it's their own thought.

Please vote your political stance: Liberal, Conservative or Libertarian/Anarchist.

If you really want to skew the vote, STTFE...put "moderate" in your list of choices. There are only a handful of liberals here that are willing to call themselves liberals...most claim to be moderates even though their stances on issues are about as far to the left as you can get.

 

[Oldstyle]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

And since when do Libertarian and Anarchist get lumped into the same category? Seriously?

Well, dude is a Socialist, so they call small government 'Anarchy'. I've heard a lot of Libertarians called 'Anarchists' because they think people should be allowed to look out for themselves.