I wish both parties would stop spending 40% more than we bring in. Then we would really see what a mess this country is in.

I wonder if The Buggy One will come back and accuse you of making up statistics because you don't believe the actual numbers.:a040:

Ya know if I looked as hard as the right-wingers did I could probably find a link that would support what I posted. And some of them would believe it. :icon_wink:

Ummm...this link was posted by djplong. I think he would be very insulted if you were to call him a "right-winger".

Do you even READ the previous posts before you make one of your inane comments? Just wonderin'....:icon_wink:

Dale, like lots of libs, deal in feelings and not facts. It's the "nice thoughts" and "good intentions" that count and not the ramifications of what's imposed.

Supporting views with documentation and reported results and an eye toward history would just clutter the mind and stifle the creativity.

I'm still a little confused about how they count people that have stopped looking for work. I collected unemployment insurance several times during my career, and never once do I remember anyone calling and saying "How you doing Jan, still looking for work?" after my benefits ended.

Are they sophisticated enough to match social security numbers from unemployment benefit recipients to newly hired workers? Anybody know?

Richie (and others) - that 63.7% employment number also reflexts the number of RETIRED people.

Of course there will be more people not working than any time in the last 30 years - the huge demographic bubble known as the Baby Boomers is hitting retirement age (that's why the annual Social Security Surplus no longer exists).

The chart that Richie posted a link to doesn't break out the reasons WHY someone is no longer in the labor force. It simply refers to "non-institutional population"
(meaning not in prison or otherwise institutionalized from what I gather in context)

There are about 3.3 MILLION fewer jobs now than when Obama assumed office. We've had lots of people enter the work force since Obama took office and that figure has to be of concern. The "new jobs" created is a smoke and mirrors illusion of progress.

No wonder the President always points at others for this failure.

Current Employment Rate | UnemploymentData.com

Obama Economy Facts | Keith Hennessey

http://cdn.gigya.com/wildfire/i/CIMP...D=2000002.0NXC
Richie, it appears that Buggy is not the only one having trouble comprehending what you said and what was in the article you provided a link for. In reading the above quote you'd think that ALL retirees are now back in the work force. To be sure though, I think I better contact my retirement system about this. I haven't received a notice yet that I'm no longer retired!

http://th1141.photobucket.com/albums...anicbutton.gif

Sky - my intent was to point out that the 63.7% sounds low because it REFLECTS (not 'includes') retired people - meaning that they are out of the work force, hence the reason the number appears surprisingly low.

OK, I'll accept that what you wrote is not what you meant! I do have to ask though, how do you know that the potentially employable figures (the base figure for calculating the percentage) includes retired people or an accurate figure of retired people that could go back into the workforce? Irregardless of the answer to that question, I don't personally have any confidence that any unemployment figure is accurate or anywhere near accurate. In some cases the figures are derived from polling just like with the presidential polls; and you know those are all over the place.

In another case the figures are derived from the Department of Labor. In this case the gathering of data has to be extremely difficult and highly exposed to legitimate or not so legitimate errors. Also, there are at least as many potential opportunities for manipulation as there are states and territories reporting, and that includes political manipulation. And, I don't even want to begin to get into or understand the different types and theories of unemployment.

Anyway, thanks for explaining what your original statement could not communicate! I now "think" I know what you were attempting to say!