Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Biden popped his head out of the rat hole??.............lol
Not very lady like of me. I was going to say that Biden popped his head out of another hole????????
Jumping ship this late in the game, too little and much to late.
There's plent of promises he didn't keep - as is the case with all Presidents.
Ken
Really now. Well he is the only one that promised you me, the man on the moon, Hope n' Change day in and day out.
He is the only one that i remember that promised he would be the very one to make such a difference, don't remember. He did have him on stupid tapes. From 08-0/10.
He said that he would bring about unity, that is quite a lie. He is the only bully of a President, that has to get his way, or the hwy, hit the road jack. Disagree with my stance, and the IRS will come after you. Ring a bell
His arrogance does not bother me as much as his bullish inmature attitude. And he is the one that said everything that was wrong he would fix. Yeah he sure the hell knows hot to fix things right?
Really now. Well he is the only one that promised you me, the man on the moon, Hope n' Change day in and day out.
He is the only one that i remember that promised he would be the very one to make such a difference, don't remember. He did have him on stupid tapes. From 08-0/10.
He said that he would bring about unity, that is quite a lie. He is the only bully of a President, that has to get his way, or the hwy, hit the road jack. Disagree with my stance, and the IRS will come after you. Ring a bell
His arrogance does not bother me as much as his bullish inmature attitude. And he is the one that said everything that was wrong he would fix. Yeah he sure the hell knows hot to fix things right?
Like hell he did?
In Jan of 2009 when he took office the country was on the verge of a depression. The banking system was near collapse, the credit markets locked up, we were shedding nearly 800,000 jobs a month, the housing market was in full collapse, the stock market in full collapse as well, the deficit was surging, and we were involved in 2 costly wars at the same time.
That has pretty much ALL "changed" - so yeah there HAS been "change".
Maybe YOU would prefer to go back to a banking industry near collapse, credit markets locked up, shedding nearly 800,000 jobs/month, a housing market in full collapse, a stock market in full collapse, a deficit surging, and being in 2 costly wars at the same time.
Me?
I LIKE how things have "changed".
That's utter nonsense. The 2 statistics (LFPR and non-farm payrolls) are not related and come from independent servays. Where you do even get this stuff?
Farm workers are not included in the non-farm payrolls but are included in the LFPR.
The LFPR is defined by the BLS as follows:
"The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population"
The labor force in turn is defined as:
"The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary."
And the Civilian noninstitutional population is defined as:
"persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces."
Employed persons meanwhile are defined as:
"Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations."
Notice that the "Civilian noninstitutional population" does NOT exclude farmers so they are therefore INCLUDED. It's everyone who is 16 and older who is not in the military and not institutionalized - and that "Employed persons" specifically INCLUDES farmers. The wacko stuff you guys seem to believe is just astonishing.
The LFPR surged in the late 60's and 70's because:
1) the huge babyboomer demographic reached working age
2) the woman's lib movement resulted in more women working rather than just being moms.
Look at the population pyramid - select the letter "U" on the right, then choose the U.S. and look at 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 etc, etc, etc and watch the babyboomer bulge change ages and they move into adulthood.
A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:
- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees
This monthly report also includes estimates on the average work week and the average weekly earnings of all non-farm employees.
Definition of 'Participation Rate'
A measure of the active portion of an economy's labor force. The participation rate refers to the number of people who are either employed or are actively looking for work. The number of people who are no longer actively searching for work would not be included in the participation rate. During an economic recession, many workers often get discouraged and stop looking for employment, as a result, the participation rate decreases.
___________________
Family farms were excluded from the definition of employed. Why is this so hard to understand?
Another thing that you and your ilk fail to consider is the female participation rates. Back in the 40s-50s-60s women were housewives and didn't participate, yet would be included in the figures.
There are so many metrics that have changed, that to compare the current participation rates to pre-modern rates is almost laughable.
How about we simply use the last 50 years. Would that be fair?
AGAIN!
Using the baseline of 67% which was the average participation rate for two decades, why is 63% not considered moving backwards? I can't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.
Never mind... everything is great!
The participation rate can go to 52%, like the 50s, and we'll be just fine. That's basically what you're arguing, right?
A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:
- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees
This monthly report also includes estimates on the average work week and the average weekly earnings of all non-farm employees.
Definition of 'Participation Rate'
A measure of the active portion of an economy's labor force. The participation rate refers to the number of people who are either employed or are actively looking for work. The number of people who are no longer actively searching for work would not be included in the participation rate. During an economic recession, many workers often get discouraged and stop looking for employment, as a result, the participation rate decreases.
___________________
Family farms were excluded from the definition of employed. Why is this so hard to understand?
Another thing that you and your ilk fail to consider is the female participation rates. Back in the 40s-50s-60s women were housewives and didn't participate, yet would be included in the figures.
There are so many metrics that have changed, that to compare the current participation rates to pre-modern rates is almost laughable.
How about we simply use the last 50 years. Would that be fair?
AGAIN!
Using the baseline of 67% which was the average participation rate for two decades, why is 63% not considered moving backwards? I can't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.
Never mind... everything is great!
The participation rate can go to 52%, like the 50s, and we'll be just fine. That's basically what you're arguing, right?
snark!
Once again, the non-farm payroll statistic has NOTHING to do with the Labor Force Participation Rate - NOTHING. They are 2 different statistics that are UNRELATED. They are calcuated seperately from entirely separate surveys. that use DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS for who is considered "employed". The fact that the non-farm payrolls doesn't include farm workers does not affect the LFPR. I showed you definitions used in the LFPR and it SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES FAMILY FARMERS. What part of this do you not understand?
Employed persons meanwhile are defined as:
"Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations."
It's right there in the definition of "Employed persons" used to calculate the LFPR. The LFPR rate SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES farmers, the non-farm payrolls does not - that's WHY they call it "Non Farm Payrolls". They are DIFFERENT and show entirely different things. The fact that the non-farm payrolls doesn't show farmers doesn't change the fact that the LFPR specifically DOES. It's not the "NON-FARM Labor Force Participation Rate" is just the "LABOR Force Participation Rate". Got it? If the LFPR rate excuded farmers the name of the statistic would reflect that - just as the NON-FARM payrolls statistic does.
This is why I get so frustrated with wingnuts. When something contrary to their opinion gets posted they just ignore it. Did you not read what I posted? Did you not see the definitions of the terms used to generate the LFPR. FARMERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE LFPR - and the definition of "Employed persons" used to generate that statistic lay that out SPECIFICALLY.
And yes, I KNOW that woman started entering the workforce in the 60's and 70's. I specifically SAID THAT (apparently more proof that you don't even read what is posted). The womans lib movement, along with the entry of the HUGE babyboomer generation in general is what led to the sudden rise in the LFPR. I was NOT "farmers" - because farmers have always BEEN INCLUDED IN THAT STATISTIC.
And here are the relevent definitions from that link:
The LFPR is defined by the BLS as follows:
"The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population"
The labor force in turn is defined as:
"The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary."
And the Civilian noninstitutional population is defined as:
"persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces."
Employed persons meanwhile are defined as:
"Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations."
The sections in bold are the relevent parts of the definions used in the computation of the LFPT. And the definition of "Employed persons" specfically INCLUDES FARMERS. It specifically lays that out.
As I said, the non-farms payrolls doesn't include them but the Labor Force Participation Rate DOES - it's right there in black and white - so the claim that the LFPR has somehow fallen because farmers left the farms is not supported by facts.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-26-2014 at 07:36 AM..
Ken - that absolutely is your right to support him. You are in the 32 - 39% of people that do in America. There are many people like you on this list who have come out and said that they have gained a lot of wealth through the massive stock swings, and as such, support Obama. That is fine, and they are among the 32-39%.
Obama has lost independents, had major losses among women, blacks--basically his base. Thus the reason for the low percentages. Again, it is your right to be happy with Obama. Many disagree with you, and I am just going to leave it at that. But what is really hurting Obama is the border crisis.
The next months, by summer's end really, are going to be very telling. Obama is planning massive executive action to grant amnesty to the millions of immigrants he has brought here even since March, and the estimated 6 millions he plans to pick up in their country and bring here by summer's end. Then he plans executive action on amnesty and expansion of DACA. We will see what that does to his numbers. Millions of new immigrants are going to be beholding since they will be receiving free healthcare and support. If they were told to vote for Howdy Doody to keep their new benefits, they would. You guys even have a Congressman in Illinois, Gutierrez, who is on record saying "Americans must be punished." We will see what happens.
Ken - that absolutely is your right to support him. You are in the 32 - 39% of people that do in America. There are many people like you on this list who have come out and said that they have gained a lot of wealth through the massive stock swings, and as such, support Obama. That is fine, and they are among the 32-39%.
Obama has lost independents, had major losses among women, blacks--basically his base. Thus the reason for the low percentages. Again, it is your right to be happy with Obama. Many disagree with you, and I am just going to leave it at that. But what is really hurting Obama is the border crisis.
The next months, by summer's end really, are going to be very telling. Obama is planning massive executive action to grant amnesty to the millions of immigrants he has brought here even since March, and the estimated 6 millions he plans to pick up in their country and bring here by summer's end. Then he plans executive action on amnesty and expansion of DACA. We will see what that does to his numbers. Millions of new immigrants are going to be beholding since they will be receiving free healthcare and support. If they were told to vote for Howdy Doody to keep their new benefits, they would. You guys even have a Congressman in Illinois, Gutierrez, who is on record saying "Americans must be punished." We will see what happens.
Obama's average approval rating has never dropped below 40%. I'm not even sure a single poll has even given him an approval rating of 32% as you claim - but certainly his poll average has never come anywhere near that. The lowest single poll approval rating for for Bush on the other hand was 25%, so Obama has a longgggg way to go before he sinks to the approval rating level of the last President.
NOBODY is popular in DC right not - not Obama, not Congress. Congress has an average approval rating of 13% - which makes Obama's average approval rating of 42% seem stellar
The number of illegal immigrant who have come here under Obama is DWARFED by those who came here under Bush. In fact, until the very recent surge of the past year or so, the number of illegal immigrants in the US was pretty close to being flat - and even with the recent surge it's still not too far from that. The biggest surge of illegal immigrants was under the Bush Administration - not Obama's. In 2001 there were an estimated 7,800,000 illegal immigrants in the US. By 2008 that had climbed to 11,600,000 - an increase of 3.8 million. The current estimate of illegal immigrants is around 12,000,000 - barely more than it was when Obama came into office.
Ken, you need to grow up so you can join the adults in reasonable conversation.
You blissfully ignore that you are fighting everyone in this thread... or is that what gets you off?
but... I digress, because if I had been so enamored by the Obama lie, and so horribly betrayed, I'd be bitter too.
Lol--if you think these are intelligent 'adult' statements, I suggest you get a dictionary:
"Biden popped his head out of the rat hole??.............lol"
"everybody should just buy a shot gun and everything will be alright..."
"Yup, Dear Leader's cornhole."
"Biden, the other moron"
Ken is pretty much the only one in this thread presenting facts vs. a bunch of known Obama haters who constantly use ad hominem attacks and make up childish names for the president therefore destroying their own credibility. I don't know why he even bothers. This is simply another one of those Obama-bashing threads with all the usual suspects jumping on the bandwagon and once again throwing childish insults around. The above ad hominem attack is an example. It is what people resort to when they have no substantial argument. Threads like this are basically a waste of time as it is so transparently obvious why they are started.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
