Originally Posted by Guest

President Obama has a 53 percent approval rating. That is way higher than Crapweasel Bush had at the same time in office.

Congress has a 14 percent approval rating.

It is very easy to see that President Obama is far more popular than Congress - oh yes, a Republican controlled Congress.

And the curb is 6 inches higher that the gutter!!! Fan-dam-tastic logic!!

Originally Posted by Guest

And the curb is 6 inches higher that the gutter!!! Fan-dam-tastic logic!!

Ah yes, the REPUBLICAN controlled congress, that the people elected after just a couple years of tyranny. There will be dancing in the streets when Obama is seen driving out of D.C. for the last time.

Originally Posted by Guest

Apparently, you haven't had a TV or Internet in the past seven years, or you wouldn't make such ludicrous statements.

I was with you until I got to that statement.

Is there another way to respond on TOTV besides the Internet? Can you explain that to me?

Originally Posted by Guest

I was with you until I got to that statement.

Is there another way to respond on TOTV besides the Internet? Can you explain that to me?

Thank you. You apparently fit the statement precisely. Can I explain it? Sorry, but I doubt I have enough time before the short bus arrives to transport you.

[QUOTE=Guest;1204245]

Originally Posted by Guest

Half the work force has stopped looking for work. The total work force is 156 million. The total US population is 323 million. 156 x 2 = 312 million.
So, children of school age and under, and retired people in the US makes up the difference 11 million. Don't you think that half is just a little high?
QUOTE]

Look, I am a far left progressive, in the Elizabeth Warren wing, but your statement that 1/2 the work force has stopped looking is ridiculous and making feces up doesn't help our side look reasonable. The bureau of labor statistics actually studies these things so you don't have to guess. It should be obvious that not every American is seeking employment. There are plenty of homes with a stay at home parent. Members of the military are not counted as employed. Etc. etc.

There are 60 million Americans on Social Security There are 70 million under age 18, so that gives you 130 million right off the top.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quic...stat_snapshot/
Persons under age 18, 2015-2060

Here is the data, and if you are really interested in how the data is collected the BLS website is very thorough
Employment Situation Summary

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%

[QUOTE=Guest;1205490]

Originally Posted by Guest

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%

Guess he wasn't far off when he said "half" were not working or not employed. Those figures don't reflect those working part-time.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205490][QUOTE=Guest;1204245]

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%[/QUOT

The difference in the work force from 2000 to 2016 is 3,400,000. What was the amount of not employed/not in the labor force in 2000? You left that out. It was over 40%. The only thing that has change is the person running the country. To try and float out there that the unemployment rate is 43.1% is just plain nonsense.

Presidents in this country can't control what businesses do. The president has little control of getting the US out of a recession especially when the other party is doing everything it can to make sure that he doesn't succeed even at the cost of its citizens. Party first, citizens second. We should all feel so proud, and what we have created.

Originally Posted by Guest

According to statista.com, In Feb 2016 there were only 121.76 million full-time workers in the U.S. I stand corrected, the employed adults equal about 62% of the total. That means that about 48% of eligible adults are not working. I believe that sometime between last year at this time and now, our labor force has been at a 38 year low. Since statistics are sketchy this year so far, I am not sure if we still fit the historical 38 year low.

As for your statement that no other president has had to deal with a recession like this one he was handed, I believe you will find that there have been plenty of recessions that other presidents have had to endure. And remember, Obama was the one that knew what he was asking for when he ran, and Obama is the one that assured everyone that he knew what he was doing. But, he wouldn't listen to his economic advisors, even firing them. NO, he has been responsible for the longest recession OR Depression recovery in history. Blaming Republicans for obstruction is just immature. You know as well as I do that there was NOTHING they could do in the first two years to hinder ANYTHING he wished to do. His own party may have gotten in his way, but not the Republicans. Nope, instead they insisted on forcing Obamacare through, after everyone warned them and the voters did not want it. Proof was the resulting historical congressional massacre on election day.

I believe that the point was the high rate of those that are not in the work force in comparison with employed. Please don't be insulting by suggesting that if minimum wages were higher that would change anything. Min wages are for school kids, retirees and those working a second part-time job. Min wages were never meant for full-time employment.

The Republicans didn't use the filibuster in Obama's first two years of his presidency. You can capitalize anything that you want, but that is a immature. You are of the misguided impression that the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. That wasn't the case.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did...-for-how-long/

McConnell used the filibuster from day one of Obama's presidency. He is the king of the filibuster of that he has no equal.

The citizens in Mass. didn't want Romneycare either. They had enough signatures to get it on the ballot. The Mass. Senate stopped it from getting on the ballot. Given a chance, Romneycare worked in Mass. States that were in Republican control never gave Obamacare a chance to work.

Minimum wage was never meant for full time employment. Turning full time jobs into part time jobs was also never meant to be. Moving the majority of production jobs oversea because of cheap overseas labor was never meant to be, but that is where we are now. Increasing the minimum wage will get people off food stamps. Republicans keep throwing the number of people on food stamps as being a major problem; however, doing something that will help people get off food stamps is a bridge too far. Republicans would rather complain than fix a problem that exists in their minds.

Does anyone in their right mind think that Trump will be able to change anything? Obama was "hope and change". Trump is selling "change". Hope that anything in DC will change is now out of the question.

You haven't mentioned one single action above that has not been done with even more zest by the dems when in the same position.

For example the noteable job done by HArry Reid when he headed the senate. His sole purpose in life was to make sure anything he or Obama did not like never made it past his desk. How many hundreds of bills literally stopped at the inbox.

Don't be such a hypocrite and push to the background what your party did as well.

DID YA FORGET THEY ARE ALL POLITICIANS?

Of course you didn't. Politicians and their supporters are all hypocrites. Especially the crony, business as usual establishment.

And as far as yapping about who would vote for TrumP? A whole lot of voters who will not vote for the Clinton felon, liar, cheateing phony.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205730][QUOTE=Guest;1205490]

Originally Posted by Guest

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%[/QUOT

The difference in the work force from 2000 to 2016 is 3,400,000. What was the amount of not employed/not in the labor force in 2000? You left that out. It was over 40%. The only thing that has change is the person running the country. To try and float out there that the unemployment rate is 43.1% is just plain nonsense.

Presidents in this country can't control what businesses do. The president has little control of getting the US out of a recession especially when the other party is doing everything it can to make sure that he doesn't succeed even at the cost of its citizens. Party first, citizens second. We should all feel so proud, and what we have created.

No, I did not say that the unemployment rate in 2000 was 43.1%. I used that figure for today. And that is the figure based on those in the working force plus those not in the working force. The percentage was those no longer in the working force divided by the total. That gives you the percentage, in case you are questioning the math.
Regarding the total not working percentage in 2000, the numbers I got from BLS indicate 33.8%. Your math must be off a bit.

In 2000,

Living in poverty = 32,383,466
Food Stamps = 17,458,988

Now,

Living in poverty = 46,752,103
Food Stamps = 44,927,996

That's an increase of:
44.3% in poverty level
157.3% in food stamps

The president's policies, with the help of a Democrat controlled congress had a lot to do with the decline. You act like restrictive business policies do not have any affect employment and standard of living levels.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205803][QUOTE=Guest;1205730]

Originally Posted by Guest

No, I did not say that the unemployment rate in 2000 was 43.1%. I used that figure for today. And that is the figure based on those in the working force plus those not in the working force. The percentage was those no longer in the working force divided by the total. That gives you the percentage, in case you are questioning the math.
Regarding the total not working percentage in 2000, the numbers I got from BLS indicate 33.8%. Your math must be off a bit.

In 2000,

Living in poverty = 32,383,466
Food Stamps = 17,458,988

Now,

Living in poverty = 46,752,103
Food Stamps = 44,927,996

That's an increase of:
44.3% in poverty level
157.3% in food stamps

The president's policies, with the help of a Democrat controlled congress had a lot to do with the decline. You act like restrictive business policies do not have any affect employment and standard of living levels.

There is the problem with the numbers that you are throwing out there. You are trying to imply that all of the changes occurred in the years 2009 to date. People no longer in the work force implies that they were there to begin with. There are of plenty of spouses that were never in the work force. "No longer" implies that they were once upon a time.

I am not calling you a liar. However, the saying goes "figures lie, and liars figure". The first class in Accounting we were asked, "How much is one and one?" The answer was whatever you want it to be.

Easing up the restrictions on Wall Street threw this country into the Great Recession. Dowd/Frank addresses the problems that caused the Great Recession, and the Republicans did everything they could to make sure Dowd/Frank couldn't be enforced. They didn't approve the first person to run the overseeing of Wall Street department of the government, which was Elizabeth Warren. How did that work out for them?

You act moving high paying production jobs overseas has nothing to do with employment, and the standard of living for working people. That hasn't occur from 2009 on. That has been in affect for decades.

What president policy has resulted in the increase in people on food stamps? Try as you may, the Republicans can't walk away from the policies implemented in "W's" term of office, that has a lot to do with what we are stuck with now. There is plenty of blame to go around for our present state, but the Republicans don't want to accept any part of it.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205959][QUOTE=Guest;1205803]

Originally Posted by Guest

There is the problem with the numbers that you are throwing out there. You are trying to imply that all of the changes occurred in the years 2009 to date. People no longer in the work force implies that they were there to begin with. There are of plenty of spouses that were never in the work force. "No longer" implies that they were once upon a time.

I am not calling you a liar. However, the saying goes "figures lie, and liars figure". The first class in Accounting we were asked, "How much is one and one?" The answer was whatever you want it to be.

Easing up the restrictions on Wall Street threw this country into the Great Recession. Dowd/Frank addresses the problems that caused the Great Recession, and the Republicans did everything they could to make sure Dowd/Frank couldn't be enforced. They didn't approve the first person to run the overseeing of Wall Street department of the government, which was Elizabeth Warren. How did that work out for them?

You act moving high paying production jobs overseas has nothing to do with employment, and the standard of living for working people. That hasn't occur from 2009 on. That has been in affect for decades.

What president policy has resulted in the increase in people on food stamps? Try as you may, the Republicans can't walk away from the policies implemented in "W's" term of office, that has a lot to do with what we are stuck with now. There is plenty of blame to go around for our present state, but the Republicans don't want to accept any part of it.

Twist it any way you wish, but the facts remain that there is higher poverty and a record high food stamp list. You can twist all the other facts all you wish. They aren't my figures, but the BLS. I didn't make them up. You want to praise Obama, I won't. I see no reason to suggest that he did anything to help the recovery. As a matter of fact, this is the slowest recovery of any past recession or depression in history. It's on his watch. If you want to blame Bush, go for it. I'll blame Clinton, because a lot of it is his fault also. And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term,,,,,,,,with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also.

Facts are still there....record food stamp recipients
High poverty level.

[QUOTE=Guest;1205973][QUOTE=Guest;1205959]

Originally Posted by Guest

Twist it any way you wish, but the facts remain that there is higher poverty and a record high food stamp list. You can twist all the other facts all you wish. They aren't my figures, but the BLS. I didn't make them up. You want to praise Obama, I won't. I see no reason to suggest that he did anything to help the recovery. As a matter of fact, this is the slowest recovery of any past recession or depression in history. It's on his watch. If you want to blame Bush, go for it. I'll blame Clinton, because a lot of it is his fault also. And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term,,,,,,,,with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also.

Facts are still there....record food stamp recipients
High poverty level.

Do you know what will happen in the next presidency? This is what will happen the highest poverty level ever, and the most people on food stamps ever. If the Republican candidate wins, he will blame Obama, because nothing bad ever happens on a Republican's watch.

I haven't praised anyone. Do you know what got America out of the depression? It was WWII. Until the wars in the 21 century, wars result in full employment.

"And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also." That is right it does suggest something, which is what I just stated nothing is ever the Republicans fault, or nothing that they will ever admit to.

The next thing you are going to tell me is the economic condition that "W" was handed was the same as what he past to Obama. You just will not accept the fact that all recessions aren't the same. Economic conditions are the same now as they were in the 70's, 80's, and 90's despite all evidence to the contrary.

[QUOTE=Guest;1206014][QUOTE=Guest;1205973]

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you know what will happen in the next presidency? This is what will happen the highest poverty level ever, and the most people on food stamps ever. If the Republican candidate wins, he will blame Obama, because nothing bad ever happens on a Republican's watch.

I haven't praised anyone. Do you know what got America out of the depression? It was WWII. Until the wars in the 21 century, wars result in full employment.

"And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also." That is right it does suggest something, which is what I just stated nothing is ever the Republicans fault, or nothing that they will ever admit to.

The next thing you are going to tell me is the economic condition that "W" was handed was the same as what he past to Obama. You just will not accept the fact that all recessions aren't the same. Economic conditions are the same now as they were in the 70's, 80's, and 90's despite all evidence to the contrary.

You do have it skewed. You are very mixed up and/or brainwashed by your ideology. Other than Obama, have you ever heard a new president blame his troubles and his failure on a previous president?

I'm not going to educate you. You seem like a smart enough person, even though you are so totally mislead.

Now that you defended Obama, how are you going to explain Hillary's troubles? Are you going to blame Bush for that also? Or, are you going to suggest that it is a vast right wing conspiracy? She is a criminal and a liar and a thief. Are you still going to vote for her?

[QUOTE=Guest;1206014][QUOTE=Guest;1205973]

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you know what will happen in the next presidency? This is what will happen the highest poverty level ever, and the most people on food stamps ever.

Because it REALLY doesn't matter who wins as long as it's one of THEIR guys.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...no matter the party.