Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created

5 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created - Page 3 TheMasterOfDisaster

Even you can't believe THAT LIE. This is a keeper Floridatexan. I'm sure it will come in handy when you swear something is the truth... Did you get it from this link? http://randyreport.blogspot.com/2012/07/president-bush-wipes-out-56-trillion.html

There was never ever a $1 TRILLION surplus anywhere in our history much less $5.6 TRILLION.

The DEBT was $5.6 TRILLION when President George Walker Bush took office.  EIGHT YEARS later it was a bit over $10 TRILLION when President Barack Hussein Obama took office.  Today, LESS than FIVE years into the administration of President Obama and the DEBT is $17 TRILLION.

You need to delete from your bookmarks wherever it is that you found that laughable graphic.

Is this the link you used for the graphic?

http://bill4dogcatcher.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/bogus-claim-bush-wiped-out-the-clinton-5-6-trillion-surplus-in-just-two-years/

Factually, President William Jefferson Clinton never had a DEFICIT surplus either. What appears to be a surplus are monies collected for Social Security and Medicare then lent to the general fund.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
Here are a few more very distasteful facts for you to swallow.  This is the DECLINE in the Labor Participation.  In other words, FAR fewer people are working today than when President Barack Hussein Obama took office.

It's almost as if you haven't even the slightest inkling as to what economic terms and jargon actually mean, which makes it even more strange when you use those words incorrectly, and yet so confidently.

Markle, millions more people are working today than when Obama took office.  When someone is working, they are said to have a 'job'.  If the number of 'jobs' increases, one can conclude that more people are working.   I wish I could say this is Econ101, but it isn't.  This is grade school level english and math.

In January 2009, which is when Obama took office, there were 131,627,000 total, non-farm jobs in the US:  or, put another way, 131,627,000 people were working.  As of the last jobs report, there are 136,805,000 million jobs; or, there are 136,805,000 people working.

131,627,000 in 2009, and 136,805,000 today.  Which number is bigger, Markle?  Which number does the alligator eat?  Are more or less people working today?  Would you like to stand corrected?

Labor participation rate merely measure the rate at which people participate in the labor force - whether they happen to be employed or unemployed but seeking employment.  0 people could be working, but if everyone is actively seeking employment, the labor participation rate would be 100%.   Aside from that, the participation rate has been declining or stagnant for some time now, it isn't some sort of new phenomenon that began in 2009.

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created - Page 3 Latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1960_2013_all_period_M06_data

You are comparing apples with pineapples.  My figures show the percentage of our population working.

YOUR figures show the number of workers BUT you also fail to take into consideration the 150,000 to 200,000 increase in our population each month.  Oops....

I realize that is way above your arithmetic level, perhaps you can seek help?

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:You are comparing apples with pineapples.  My figures show the percentage of our population working.

YOUR figures show the number of workers BUT you also fail to take into consideration the 150,000 to 200,000 increase in our population each month.  Oops....

I realize that is way above your arithmetic level, perhaps you can seek help?

Slow down, Markle!  Focus, damnit!  (snaps finger)  Try an keep your eyes on the ball!

You said this:

Markle wrote:Here are a few more very distasteful facts for you to swallow.  This is the DECLINE in the Labor Participation.  In other words, FAR fewer people are working today than when President Barack Hussein Obama took office.

Does a decline in the labor participation rate mean that less people are working?   You agree that you were completely full of shit when you said that, right?

Further, are "FAR fewer" people working today than when Obama took office?  You agree that you were completely full of shit there, right?

If you simply stand corrected, this will all be over.  Simply say, "I, Markle, agree that I was wrong there. I stand corrected now." Otherwise, I can try and dumb it down even more for you.  Let me know how you would like to proceed.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

And they never heard from him again...


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:It's kinda funny... pull the magic keynesian dollars out of this equation and the graphs would really scare the huddled masses... but if they had truly not been injected we might well have been recovering. The 1920 depression was an example of the later... the great depression an example of the former.

You're smarter than this, PkrBum.  Is the Great Recession, by any stretch of the imagination, even remotely comparable to the recession of 1920?

You're right, and that is because they were handled in a vastly different manner. FDR and his policies extended the Great Depression for at least SEVEN YEARS, President Barack Hussein Obama is following a very similar path.

FDR’s Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., in a private meeting at the Treasury Department, May 9, 1939. Morgenthau was lamenting the fact that government deficit spending did not have the intended effect (reducing unemployment). Sound familiar?

"No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…"

"But why not let’s come to grips? And as I say, all I am interested in is to really see this country prosperous and this form of Government continue, because after eight years if we can’t make a success somebody else is going to claim the right to make it and he’s got the right to make the trial. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started."

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:And they never heard from him again...

Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created - Page 3 LaborForceParticipationRate512013-1

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Want to play football again too?

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:And they never heard from him again...

And we never heard from him again....

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:You're right, and that is because they were handled in a vastly different manner.  FDR and his policies extended the Great Depression for at least SEVEN YEARS, President Barack Hussein Obama is following a very similar path.

You missed the point entirely.



Last edited by boards of FL on 8/9/2013, 10:40 am; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:And they never heard from him again...
And we never heard from him again....
You still haven't responded to my post.  Just because you come back here and bump the thread, that doesn't equate to you directly responding to my post, and it doesn't make it seem any less like you are running away.

Here is my post again, Markle.  Can you respond to this?  

boards of FL wrote:Does a decline in the labor participation rate mean that less people are working?   You agree that you were completely full of shit when you said that, right?

Further, are "FAR fewer" people working today than when Obama took office?  You agree that you were completely full of shit there, right?

If you simply stand corrected, this will all be over.  Simply say, "I, Markle, agree that I was wrong there.  I stand corrected now."   Otherwise, I can try and dumb it down even more for you.  Let me know how you would like to proceed.  


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Obama’s economy: Two food stamp recipients for every job created

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum