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

I think that was the feminist movement that got women out of the homes and into the workplace.

 

Both of those numbers have gone down steadily since the bottom of the Bush Recession.

But Crackpot Noise Service didn't tell you that.

 

Uh, how do you figure removing the program which gave 20 million people health coverage not remove that coverage?

 

Lol........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110308842.html

Reality seems to disagree with you.

Democrat policies pulled us out the great bush recession. Tripled the Dow, restored home prices and cut unemployment to under 5%.

What have republicans proposed to replace it with? They've had the house since 2010. Other than impotent grandstanding with some 40+ futile attempts to repeal it, wasting tax payer money knowing full well there was no chance of repealing it. What's have the proposed to fix it, or replace it With?

 

I did. You're welcome.

I did

We are discussing the unemployment rate. That excludes U6. So no, you proved nothing but your own ignorance.

 

Actually it was WWII and racism. The manpower needs of the military pulled white men from industry. Industry wouldn't hire black men so it hired white women to do the work.

 

The Labor statistics are compiled by surveys of a handful of people within the population that provides those numbers you defend as the truth. Of course they are fudged since the government is certainly capable of providing the real data due to our technical advances in information gathering. Government websites should not be compiling information by surveys and it is an insult to the public that they continue to use surveys to collect data.

 

...as a result of record number of people on welfare, a great accomplishment in the liberal mind..buys votes, the sole reason...

 

Why are retirees counted as they can still go back to work. Besides no one is counted if they are not telling the government they are looking for work. Face the simple facts. Job growth has not even kept up with population growth and thats what counts. It needs to grow faster than the population with jobs that pay better not part time ones that pay less with no benefits and insurance policies with skyrocketing costs and deductibles so high it makes them worthless. Only people like me on Medicaid make out and even we lose as there are so many more on it now and not more Drs taking it

Ive lost a few Drs now matter what Obama promised

 

Just out of curiosity what would you call a credible news source without spin? Let me guess NPR, AP or maybe rolling stone? Oh wait, I know NY Times.

 

Somebody has been listening to Thom Hartman too much

 

"Since President Barack Obama first took office:
"The number of Americans on food stamps is up 36 percent"

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/obamas-numbers-july-2016-update/

 

As usual, criticism from the far right but not one word of successful refutation.

Thank you for conceding to the TRUTH.

 

That would be in workforce participation, not unemployment, they are not counted there.

That would be unemployment not workforce participation where they are in fact included.

The simple fact is that it has exceeded the number of people entering the workforce. That is why unemployment is down to what is considered full employment. It has not exceeded population growth because the fastest growing segments of the population are those least likely to be seeking work, over 65 and 16-24 where you have a large percentage of each group either retired in the former or in school in the latter.

Agreed and there are solutions, single payer like every other industrialized nation has and is proven effective and give unions back their teeth.

For that you need to talk to your state legislature. They are the ones in charge of Medicaid administration.

If you're on Medicaid Obama had nothing to do with that. You've deflected to lay the blame where it doesn't belong. It's the best form of camouflage politicians have so they can get away with their own misdeeds. If you're looking at someone else you don't see them.

 

Thank goodness for that or people would be eating grass and tree bark and earthworm stew. Isn't it wonderful that we live in a country that uses some of its resources to ensure that the poor and hungry have access to food with dignity? I hope they don't have to resort to eating Republican politicians.

 

The participation rate started to decline during George W Bush's tenure after reaching a record of 67.3% at the end of Bill Clinton's tenure. The rate has now stopped falling and stabilized since 2014 to 62.7% at the end of Obama's tenure.

 

At least you admit how poor America has become during Obama's reign of terror.

 

... which was caused by worst US President before Obama with his total incompetence. Never forget to mention this in combination, because the crash of 2008 happened and was caused not by Obama which is still major reason for this disaster!

 

From the link in the OP you obviously didn't read or digest.

"Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009"

- - - Updated - - -

Eight years of blaming bush has come to an end thank God.

 

Yeah ... the same procedure as every time when a new President enters White House...

"The last eight years of former President were a disaster"

Eight years of disaster under Obama
Eight years disaster under Bush Jr.
Eight years disaster under Clinton
Four years disaster under Bush Sr.
Eight years disaster under Reagan
Four years disaster under Carter
....

of course only this way seen in parts, depending if you are Republican or Democrat.... and more as looking 2 Presidents back is of course not given and irrelevant, otherwise it is not explainable why Aircraft Carriers are named with Bush and Reagan.

 

oh? How many of the 95 million not in the labor force gave up looking but want to work?

 

Obama and his sycophants have blamed Bush for eight years of Obama failure and I'm glad to see that come to an end

 

WTF??

About 1 million jobs were added under Bush, about 11 million under Obama.

Bush, only the second president on record to do so, lost jobs in the private sector, about 11 million were added under Obama.

Under Bush, the unemployment rate went from 4.2% to 7.8%, under Obama, it went from 7.8% to a recession high of 10%, to 4.7%.

In what demented universe is that "worse" than Bush??

 

Have someone explain "seasonally adjusted" to ya.

 

Most of the Bush era was economically robust and the beginning end numbers are misleading due to the housing bubble collapse as he left office. Obama on the other hand has eight years of anemic 2% or less growth which is one of the worst records in history since the great depression