The Labor Force Participation Rate: Proof that our forum republicans are low information voters

Obamasucks wrote:How about including the folks who have given up on looking for a job....bet the unemployment rate doubles.

It does. If you look at the Gallup polling of the U-6 category of unemployment, it nearly TRIPLES.

Then they cheat and use the last month of the President Bush administration when we're well over a year from the end of the failed administration of semi-retired President Obama. Compare month for month. They would do that IF the economy skyrocketed and unemployment plunged during that last year.

Most Progressives don't have a clue as to what caused the housing/mortgage/financial collapse in the first place and IF they do, they wouldn't admit it under threat of death...or water boarding.

Markle wrote:

Obamasucks wrote:How about including the folks who have given up on looking for a job....bet the unemployment rate doubles.

It does.  If you look at the Gallup polling of the U-6 category of unemployment, it nearly TRIPLES.

Then they cheat and use the last month of the President Bush administration when we're well over a year from the end of the failed administration of semi-retired President Obama.  Compare month for month.  They would do that IF the economy skyrocketed and unemployment plunged during that last year.

Most Progressives don't have a clue as to what caused the housing/mortgage/financial collapse in the first place and IF they do, they wouldn't admit it under threat of death...or water boarding.

Actually, you already asked me to compare Obama's numbers through September to Bush's numbers through September.   Here is the thread:

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t21921-with-friday-s-employment-report-that-brings-the-grand-total-to-8944000-private-sector-jobs-added-to-the-economy-during-the-obama-era#257084


Here is your post asking me to ignore the Great Recession's impact on Bush's numbers entirely and instead cherry-pick only Bush's performance through the same point of time as Obama's:

Markle wrote:
Please share with us the number of jobs created through six years and 9 months of the President Bush administration.

If you refuse, then you're not being FAIR AND BALANCED are you?

And then here is me responding to you, showing that even if we ignore the Great Recession entirely - put another way, even if we distort Bush's legacy so as to boost his numbers - we see that Obama still destroys him.  It isn't even close:

boards of FL wrote:
If we cherry pick the data and entirely eliminate the great recession from Bush's numbers, we see that 3,913,000 private sector jobs were added to the economy through September 2007 into the Bush administration.  If we combine that with the 1.5 million jobs added during Bush I, the combined number of 5.5 million in jobs is still dwarfed by the nearly 30 million jobs added under Clinton and Obama.   In fact, Obama alone dwarfs that number and we're not even finished with the Obama era yet.

So 3.9 million jobs were created through this point in the Bush administration.  Meanwhile, nearly 9 million jobs have been created during the Obama era.  And keep in mind that we're entirely erasing the Great Recession from Bush's numbers so as to give him a boost.  We're leaving the Great Recession in Obama's numbers and we see that more than twice as many jobs have been created.

Have you no response here or are you only capable of spouting bullshit and then running away?

Now, Markle, when you say, "Then they cheat and...", do you concede that your'e flat out lying there?  It has to either be that or else you're incredibly confused, right?  Which is it?  Are you lying or confused?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

Obamasucks wrote:How about including the folks who have given up on looking for a job....bet the unemployment rate doubles.

It does.  If you look at the Gallup polling of the U-6 category of unemployment, it nearly TRIPLES.

Then they cheat and use the last month of the President Bush administration when we're well over a year from the end of the failed administration of semi-retired President Obama.  Compare month for month.  They would do that IF the economy skyrocketed and unemployment plunged during that last year.

Most Progressives don't have a clue as to what caused the housing/mortgage/financial collapse in the first place and IF they do, they wouldn't admit it under threat of death...or water boarding.

Actually, you already asked me to compare Obama's numbers through September to Bush's numbers through September.   Here is the thread:

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t21921-with-friday-s-employment-report-that-brings-the-grand-total-to-8944000-private-sector-jobs-added-to-the-economy-during-the-obama-era#257084


Here is your post asking me to ignore the Great Recession's impact on Bush's numbers entirely and instead cherry-pick only Bush's performance through the same point of time as Obama's:

Markle wrote:
Please share with us the number of jobs created through six years and 9 months of the President Bush administration.

If you refuse, then you're not being FAIR AND BALANCED are you?

And then here is me responding to you, showing that even if we ignore the Great Recession entirely - put another way, even if we distort Bush's legacy so as to boost his numbers - we see that Obama still destroys him.  It isn't even close:

boards of FL wrote:
If we cherry pick the data and entirely eliminate the great recession from Bush's numbers, we see that 3,913,000 private sector jobs were added to the economy through September 2007 into the Bush administration.  If we combine that with the 1.5 million jobs added during Bush I, the combined number of 5.5 million in jobs is still dwarfed by the nearly 30 million jobs added under Clinton and Obama.   In fact, Obama alone dwarfs that number and we're not even finished with the Obama era yet.

So 3.9 million jobs were created through this point in the Bush administration.  Meanwhile, nearly 9 million jobs have been created during the Obama era.  And keep in mind that we're entirely erasing the Great Recession from Bush's numbers so as to give him a boost.  We're leaving the Great Recession in Obama's numbers and we see that more than twice as many jobs have been created.

Have you no response here or are you only capable of spouting bullshit and then running away?

Now, Markle, when you say, "Then they cheat and...", do you concede that your'e flat out lying there?  It has to either be that or else you're incredibly confused, right?  Which is it?  Are you lying or confused?

The unemployment rate had been BELOW FIVE PERCENT for the three years prior to that date. How do you add jobs when all those who wish to work...are working.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

Obamasucks wrote:How about including the folks who have given up on looking for a job....bet the unemployment rate doubles.

It does.  If you look at the Gallup polling of the U-6 category of unemployment, it nearly TRIPLES.

Then they cheat and use the last month of the President Bush administration when we're well over a year from the end of the failed administration of semi-retired President Obama.  Compare month for month.  They would do that IF the economy skyrocketed and unemployment plunged during that last year.

Most Progressives don't have a clue as to what caused the housing/mortgage/financial collapse in the first place and IF they do, they wouldn't admit it under threat of death...or water boarding.

Actually, you already asked me to compare Obama's numbers through September to Bush's numbers through September.   Here is the thread:

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t21921-with-friday-s-employment-report-that-brings-the-grand-total-to-8944000-private-sector-jobs-added-to-the-economy-during-the-obama-era#257084


Here is your post asking me to ignore the Great Recession's impact on Bush's numbers entirely and instead cherry-pick only Bush's performance through the same point of time as Obama's:

Markle wrote:
Please share with us the number of jobs created through six years and 9 months of the President Bush administration.

If you refuse, then you're not being FAIR AND BALANCED are you?

And then here is me responding to you, showing that even if we ignore the Great Recession entirely - put another way, even if we distort Bush's legacy so as to boost his numbers - we see that Obama still destroys him.  It isn't even close:

boards of FL wrote:
If we cherry pick the data and entirely eliminate the great recession from Bush's numbers, we see that 3,913,000 private sector jobs were added to the economy through September 2007 into the Bush administration.  If we combine that with the 1.5 million jobs added during Bush I, the combined number of 5.5 million in jobs is still dwarfed by the nearly 30 million jobs added under Clinton and Obama.   In fact, Obama alone dwarfs that number and we're not even finished with the Obama era yet.

So 3.9 million jobs were created through this point in the Bush administration.  Meanwhile, nearly 9 million jobs have been created during the Obama era.  And keep in mind that we're entirely erasing the Great Recession from Bush's numbers so as to give him a boost.  We're leaving the Great Recession in Obama's numbers and we see that more than twice as many jobs have been created.

Have you no response here or are you only capable of spouting bullshit and then running away?

Now, Markle, when you say, "Then they cheat and...", do you concede that your'e flat out lying there?  It has to either be that or else you're incredibly confused, right?  Which is it?  Are you lying or confused?

The unemployment rate had been BELOW FIVE PERCENT for the three years prior to that date.  How do you add jobs when all those who wish to work...are working.

But all those who wanted jobs weren't working.  This is where your bullshit conflates against you.  Over the last week, you have created various posts and threads where you try to downplay the U3 number and instead tell us all to pay attention to the U6 number.  Fair enough.  I showed you that the U6 unemployment rate doubled during the Bush years and has fallen 30% under Obama.  Also, you have spent the last several years telling us that any declines in the U3 unemployment rate are  purely due to people dropping out of the workforce.  I have shown that line of reasoning to be bullshit as well.

And now here you are pointing to a declining U3 during the Bush years and saying that that must be indicative of an economy in full employment.  You're completely ignoring the fact that the LPR was on the decline during the Bush years, just as it is in decline now during the Obama years.  Do you even grasp that?  Further, you're completely ignoring everything you have told us over the last week about the U3 unemployment rate.  Haven't you been saying that the "real" unemployment rate is the U6?

This means you will have to make a choice.  All of these arguments cannot be made at the same time, so you will need to concede that one, several, or all of them are bullshit.  

So which is it, Markle?  Were you wrong about the LPR, were you wrong about the U3 and the U6, or are you wrong now when you point to the declining U3 as you attempt to boost Bush's legacy?

See if you can get your bullshit sorted out and then take another stab at replying.  Or not.

This old thread went three days without a comment.

Markle wrote:This old thread went three days without a comment.

And we're eight days into this thread now and still not one republican has been able to contribute anything substantive about the labor force participation rate.

Not one.

Do you guys want participation trophies since you at least posted to the thread?

Here you go, republicans. You weren't able to actually address the subject matter of the thread, but you at least clicked "reply" and entered some unrelated text.

Everyone, let's have a round of applause for our participation-trophy republicans! They tried!