Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force;

As you know I am not a fan of the RP, but they generally do less damage than the DP in power. Nevertheless, Big Government is a bipartisan problem that the political establishment can't seem to deal with. It is well past time to finally geld the damn thing. Hence Trump.

 

I think liberals had good intentions on this but as usual didn't think it through. They wanted poor people to be able to participate in the American dream of owning a home but the reality was they couldn't afford to buy real estate and had marginal employment that was the first to go away in the slightest economic downturn. When that happened and all those loans started going bad it rapidly spiraled out of control and took the entire economy over a cliff.

 

Herbert Hoover was a liberal? Who knew? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22303&st=home+ownership&st1=

Nixon was a liberal? Who knew?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3042&st=home+ownership&st1=

Ronald Reagan was a liberal. Who knew?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43473&st=home+ownership&st1=

George W. Bush was a liberal? Who knew?

"We need to make sure we have education programs, so that people understand what it means to buy a home, so that they're educated in what it takes to own a home. We need to make sure that we have got money available for homeowner-ship, minority homeownership. I want to thank Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines for being here. He is joined with many in the private sector to unlock millions of dollars, to make it available for the purchase of a home. Listen, when people own a home, they have a stake in the future of our society. If we're interested in economic security, we must promote home ownership for all Americans—and the same for promoting asset ownership for all Americans."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=73101&st=home+ownership&st1=

The goal to increase the rate of home ownership has been part of the national agenda since Hoover declared it in 1929. Every President since then has pushed it. And Trump will also push it, even if he doesn't know it know.

 

If your point is Conservatives want everyone to be able to participate in the American dream I agree. The way Democrats went about accomplishing that was wrong headed though. Subprime loans was a classic case of good intentions without thinking through the ultimate long term consequences which is a common liberal mistake.By the way Bush was anything but a conservative and a bitter disappointment to those of us who are Conservatives

 

Upon what basis are you blaaaaming Obama for the Great Recession, Republican austerity, and the baby boom?

It's better for your political bias than acknowledging the truth, I suppose.

 

I'm not blaming Obama for the recession I am however blaming him for the anemic recovery from it. 2% growth over eight years is a joke.

 

Well I appreciate you're not a total RW nutjot. The Great Recession is what caused many to leave the workforce.

I guess the Republicans should have done it more like when Reagan and Bush were in office.

Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

[/QUOTE]

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Again, why are you blaaaaming Obaaaaama for Republican austerity and the baby boom?

 

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Again, why are you blaaaaming Obaaaaama for Republican austerity and the baby boom?[/QUOTE]

Again, I'm blaming g Obama for the worst economic recovery in history, nothing more nothing less.

 

It wasn't Obama who forced austerity on the country when it was trying to recover from the worst recession in 80 years.

But the sheeple blame the president regardless of who controlled the spending.

And again, why are you blaaaaaming Obaaaama for the baby boomers retiring?

 

So Reagan started the community reinvestment act ?

How about this. Guess what Obama was doing before he was a Senator ?

He threatened to sue banks if they didnt give the loans then sued them for giving the loans

 

By the way, speaking of people not in the workforce, did you pick up Trump's statement last night that there "are 96 million wanting a job and they can't get (one). You know that story. The real number. That's the real number."?

Do you think that Trump is really that completely ignorant? Or do you think that he has gotten away with blatant, serial lying so much and so often, he just make colossal lies like this one without even a thought?

 

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

source data
Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx
Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Again, why are you blaaaaming Obaaaaama for Republican austerity and the baby boom?[/QUOTE]

He's not a RWNJ...LOL. He's even thanked a few of my posts and everyone knows how much the righties here hate me.

 

By the way, again, did you know that when Bush left office there was a record number of people not in the labor force? Did you write a thread about it then, too? Or was it you just didn't care about it when a Republican was in office?

 

Wow such a huge mistake. Impeach him.

- - - Updated - - -

Back to Bush. Yes he set a record on running up the debt as well. Yes he sucked. But Obama beat him on both records

 

Oh yes. It is a huge mistake. The man who is going to take over the reigns of the economy actually thinks there are 96 million people looking for a job and can't find one? Calling it a "real number" no less to emphasize his gross ignorance. That's pretty scary.

So you really think Trump is a that colossally stupid? Could be.

Then again, with his record of serial, pathological lying, he could be just repeating lies he knows are lies, but also knows that the true believers were just write it off with a sarcastic "Wow such a huge mistake. Impeach him."

Bush inherited a solid economy with 3.8% UR and a surplus budget.

Obama inherited the worst recession in 80 years with 7.8% UR which was skyrocketing and a budget already projected to hit a 1.2 trillion deficit.

See the difference?

Were you starting threads complaining about how Bush left a record number of people not in the workforce when he left office? Or is this something that is only an issue to you when there's a Dem in office?

 

Obama and austerity in the same sentence? I'm blaming Obama for job growth numbers that have fallen short of population growth and nothing else. Well maybe one other thing. His lackadaisical enforcement of illegal immigration sure has not helped and has taken jobs from Americans in droves. OK one more thing . His unfriendly business environment and Obamacare and bad trade deals driving jobs out of this country. Add all this up and you see how and why we are in this untenable economic situation and why the Democrat party has been thrown out on its ear from president to dog catcher. Now you guys need to shut up and watch how it's done.

 

Well of course.

Austerity:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Not Austerity:

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Not Austerity:

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%
Total government employment, 2001-2006: +840,000

See the difference?

Ah, blaming Obama for a false fact. How conservative of you!

Since Jan 2010, 15,769,000 private sector jobs have been added to the economy.
https://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

That averages about 187,276 new private sector jobs each month.

"The U.S. economy needs to add 145,000 jobs per month just to hold the unemployment rate steady and absorb the flow of new workers into the labor force" according to the WSJ.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/04/07/the-new-magic-number-for-monthly-job-growth-145000/

More false "facts". Immigration under Obama dropped to a trickle of what it was under Bush.

 

Bottom line is 2% and less growth in economy for eight years under obama. This failure led to all the others including the one in the OP. You can run but you can't hide.

 

I didn't run. I addressed your claim head on:

It wasn't Obama who forced austerity on the country when it was trying to recover from the worst recession in 80 years.

But the sheeple blame the president regardless of who controlled the spending.

There's the bottom line and thank you for proving my point.

You can run, but you can't hide.

And again, why are you blaaaaaming Obaaaama for the baby boomers retiring? Why are you running from addressing this fact?

Retiring baby boomers is the biggest reason that the LF has increased more in recent years.

http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-demographics-2016-3

You can run, but you can't hide.

 

The Republicans told us their top priority was getting Obama out of office, not helping the economy recovery from the worst recession in 80 years left by the last Republican president.



"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, 10/29/2010

And they did:

Step 1: Obstruct and use control of the House to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the economy. E.g. Create as much uncertainty as possible by threatening to cause the US to shut down the government, default on its obligations, and wreck the economy. Add 700,000+ people to the unemployment lines by eliminating government jobs. Block every single proposal by the President to create jobs. Force austerity cuts in Govt spending to prevent or limit economic growth.

Step 2: Blaaaaame Obaaaaaamaaaaaa and count on the sheeple being ignorant and misinformed or simply blaming whoever is president.

As as threads like this once so amply demonstration, their plan worked great.

 

You tried to start the typical tit for tat of Chery picked statistics that is a game I refuse to play because I have neither the time nor inclination. One stat is pertinent to Obama, 2% growth or less eight years running. It's a horrific economic recovery no matter how you spin it and all other economic numbers flow from that like (*)(*)(*)(*) flows downhill.

 

and it looks like the article you linked is drawing false conclusions

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...ng_out_of_the_labor_force_and_why_100840.html

A popular view is that labor force participation is declining because older people are retiring. But since 2000 the labor force participation rates of workers 55 and over have been rising steadily, and the labor force participation rates of workers between 16 and 54 have been declining.

What is clear is that the workforce is aging. Since the beginning of the recession in 2007, 2 million fewer Americans are employed. The 25 to 54 age group has seen a decline in employment of 6 million workers. The 55+ age group, in contrast, has seen an increase in employment of 4.8 million workers. Employment in the 16 to 24 group is down by 1.8 million.


and then there is this

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...re-not-the-labor-exodus-problem/#77f69b33cb61

Since 2003, those 65 years and older have seen their labor force participation rate rise from 13.99 percent to 18.7 percent. Those aged 55-64 saw their rate rise from 62.44 percent to 64.36 percent, a recent Americans for Limited Government (ALG) study of Bureau data from 2003-2013 shows.

Meanwhile, participation by those aged 16-24 dropped from 61.56 percent in 2003 to 55.05 percent in 2013, and for those aged 25-54, it dropped from 82.98 percent to 82.01 percent.


just looking at the A10 numbers from the BLS shows that the over 55 crowd has the lowest unemployment rates of any age group

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm

 

<Rule 2> He is referring to those who have left the labor force

I didnt start this thread either. Did I criticize Bush for it ? Yes

At least he knows how many states we have

 

Data that proves you're misinformed beliefs are wrong doesn't make them "cherry picked".

I agree that the recovery has been substandard, thanks to Republican austerity and 30 years of "trickle down" economics that have gutted middle classes.

Put even a substandard recover is a hell of a lot better that the last Republican you all put in office.

We can only pray that the idiot Republican put in office this time, you thinks there are 93 million Americans looking for work, doesn't (*)(*)(*)(*) things up half has bad as the last one.

 

Oh, you're completely mistaken. Again. I don't believe that at all. Here's the guy who believes it:

Donald Trump Says '96 Million' Are Looking for Work
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trumps-96-million-moment/512969/

And not for the first time, either:

"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-says-us-has-93-milion-people-out-work/

Thank you for putting a fool in charge of our government.