Yes, the Democrats are destroying the country -- unemployment is down; the economy is up; the deficit is shrinking; the uninsured rate is down -- oh the humanity!
We'll see, won't we? :mrgreen:
Personally, I'd be fine with much higher legal immigration numbers, up to and including the current illegal immigration numbers - so long as the border is also more secure, and those we absolutely do not want entering our country are kept out (violent criminals, rapists, terrorists)
Not going to happen, no matter how much some people on the right whine.
Barack Obama will be living in the White House until another Democrat move in when he moves out in 2017.
Wait and see.
"Better days are coming." ~ But not for the out of touch, running out of time people in the GOP.
I was responding to Misterveritis, who proclaimed on the previous page, that my statement that unemployment is down under Obama is a lie. To disprove his lie I naturally needed to show the job growth only under Obama. As the graph clearly show, private sector jobs are higher now than when the President was inaugurated.
However, if you have some other claim, you are free to post a graph making that point.
What about Che, Hitler and Castro? None of them won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?
They might as well have....These are the types they seem to like lately....
I hope all progressives are that foolishly overconfident.
How does showing job growth demonstrate that unemployment is down? They can both go up at the same time...as they did from June to July.I was responding to Misterveritis, who proclaimed on the previous page, that my statement that unemployment is down under Obama is a lie. To disprove his lie I naturally needed to show the job growth only under Obama. As the graph clearly show, private sector jobs are higher now than when the President was inaugurated.
Since BLS is about the only source for these kind of data, how do you know they're undercounting? You also need to define your terms...what exactly do you mean by "given up looking?"When you factor in that the Bureau of Labor Statistics vastly undercounts the number of people who have given up looking for work or otherwise faded from the full-time work force....
Lie in quotations? Do you mean the numbers are known to be something else and are deliberately changed? Or, what I believe more likely, do you think the internationally accepted definition that's been used in the U.S. for over 70 years (with some minor changes) is wrong. And if that's the case, what definition do you propose?the unemployment numbers you are pushing are a "lie".
92.7% of them say they don't want a job. Of those who say they do, 3.8 million haven't looked for work in over a year. Is that a reliable indicator of the current labor market? And how likely are those people to start looking for work? A further 700,000 who say they want a job have looked for work in the last year, but are not available for work.Over 90 million are out of the work force.
2.6 million people in July wanted full time (35+ hours) but worked part time because they couldn't find full time work. 4.7 million wanted to work part time but had hours cut due to business conditions. How many of those were because of Obamacare?Millions have been forced into part time jobs because of obamacare.
Keep hoping and wait and see what happens.
The clock is ticking.
No one can stop time and/or change.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." ~ John Stuart Mill
How does showing job growth demonstrate that unemployment is down? They can both go up at the same time...as they did from June to July.
Now, the number of unemployed has gone down under Obama, though still about 2 million higher than pre-recession.
Since BLS is about the only source for these kind of data, how do you know they're undercounting? You also need to define your terms...what exactly do you mean by "given up looking?"
You could mean what are called "Discouraged Workers," you could mean all marginally attached, you might be misunderstanding what "not in the labor force" means and think everyone in that category has "given up" or "faded from the labor force." I can't know what you mean until you define your terms.
And then you'd have to establish why those numbers should make any difference to the unemployment data.
Lie in quotations? Do you mean the numbers are known to be something else and are deliberately changed? Or, what I believe more likely, do you think the internationally accepted definition that's been used in the U.S. for over 70 years (with some minor changes) is wrong. And if that's the case, what definition do you propose?
92.7% of them say they don't want a job. Of those who say they do, 3.8 million haven't looked for work in over a year. Is that a reliable indicator of the current labor market? And how likely are those people to start looking for work? A further 700,000 who say they want a job have looked for work in the last year, but are not available for work.
So what significance are you attaching to the 90 million not working or looking for work?
2.6 million people in July wanted full time (35+ hours) but worked part time because they couldn't find full time work. 4.7 million wanted to work part time but had hours cut due to business conditions. How many of those were because of Obamacare?
You're making broad claims with ambiguous terms. Why is that?
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?