- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,412
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
'Unemployed
[uhn-em-ploid]
adjective
1.
not employed; without a job; out of work:
an unemployed secretary.'
Unemployed | Define Unemployed at Dictionary.com
Why? Because by definition (I don't care about the BLS definition), they ARE unemployed....
If Friday’s long-awaited dip in unemployment below 6% sounded a little bit familiar to you, that’s because it was the exact benchmark that Republican presidential candidate and choice of White America Mitt Romney laid down for his own hypothetical presidency. Obama achieved that goal within 21 months of his second term, but as one Twitter user pointed out, Romney promised that pie-in-the-sky dream on an entirely different timetable:
Read more at Obama Beats Romney's Campaign Promise Of 6% Unemployment In Half the Time | The Daily Banter
I find this whole LFPR a very perplexing rightwing talking point. The Right is trying way too hard on this one.
The LFPR in the US is in line with that of most advanced economies. If anything it's a tad higher than most of Europe. If you compare it to the world, you find that most poor third world economies have a very high LFPR. The reason is obvious: no social safety net for retiring, and child labor.
So I take it that the conservatives now want our economy to look more like Ethiopia's than Germany's? Those conservatives and their funny ideas!
LOL !!
You thought of that all by yourself, didn't you ?
Made the tenuous connection that Millions not being able to find employment is a positive economic indicator ?
And that the Labor market ia right were we need to be because we don't want to turn into " Ethiopia " ??
LOL !!
Yep, he sure did didn't he ? We just have to keep our blinders on and ignore all of the other indicators that give an ACCURATE description of our current economic conditions.
Hey, the FED said they would stop QE if unemployment ever dropped below 6 percent too. So whats the hold up Yellen ?
And back in 2008, Obama said the stimulus would ensure unemployment would go no higher than 8%. It went much higher. And it stayed up there for 43 months.
So, I'd say President Obama was several years behind his own prediction.
Gee, that is nice.
But I posted that Romney promised 6% in 4 years. So...... your post is not germane to my post.
If you think only 2,000 people are going to be effected by the pipeline, you don't know anything about pipelining.
Sure it is. Romney said he could lower two points in four years. It took Obama six years.
LOL !!
Yep, he sure did didn't he ? We just have to keep our blinders on and ignore all of the other indicators that give an ACCURATE description of our current economic conditions.
Hey, the FED said they would stop QE if unemployment ever dropped below 6 percent too. So whats the hold up Yellen ?
No...it would have taken Romney 8 years.
Is it blatant dishonesty that you are completely missing my point, or do you just simply not get it? Given your reputation, I suspect I know the answer to my question.A few other sources that think the 'recovery' started in 2009:
The U.S. Economic Recovery: Long, Slow, but Still Going - Businessweek
The recovery began in 2009 but 2013 will get the credit [UPDATE] - UPI.com
So, UPI, Businessweek and the the Pew Research Center (for starters) saying the recovery began in July, 2009.
Jeez...even Paul Krugman agrees with me (that it started in 2009 anyway).
'And the free fall has ended. Last week’s G.D.P. report showed the economy growing again, at a better-than-expected annual rate of 3.5 percent. As Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com put it in recent testimony, “The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html
I give up on this.
Anyway, I have made my point...you don't agree, so be it.
I are done here.
Good day.
There's nothing more amusing than hearing a conservative pretend to care about unemployed people finding work.
Face it, Mitt would have been jumping up and down and farting quarters if he had 5.9 half way through his first term.
Try as you might, the number is good news for America.
Given that I spent much of the last decade as a officer and board member of a petroleum service business, I think I know a little about pipelines, although I admit our business served the upstream sector of the petroleum industry. Sorry, but you don't get to shoot down my credentials.
Pipelines really do not create a ton of secondary jobs. I still think the hotel creates more. That all said, you are still missing my point (probably because I am indulging you in your tangents)... when it comes to job creation, the Keystone pipeline is much to do about nothing: it just doesn't create that many jobs.
It's been declining since 2000. But why do you think that's a problem?
Face it, Mitt would have been jumping up and down and farting quarters if he had 5.9 half way through his first term.
Try as you might, the number is good news for America.
Hmm...then they backed off a bit. It was over 50 percent.
Still a substantial amount and a clear indicator that they're not as confident in these jobs numbers as some of the posters here are.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vBZSlN8C9NRSEgSKQ&sig2=IaZQuJBrK7kRQ4co7wImgQ
The tax base contains less workers, which is not a good thing. But no matter how you look at it, the most important factor that affected the published change in unemployment has nothing to do with Obama policies. That is, he didn't reduce unemployment. Baby Boomers retiring helped him look good. He's not creating enough jobs to make a dent. We need a larger working population.
Increase rates on the top bracket. Tax problem solved, and job problem solved, as locked up capital gets back into the economy.
Increase rates on the top bracket. Tax problem solved, and job problem solved, as locked up capital gets back into the economy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?