The unemployment rate is now where it was when Man first walked on the moon

[middleview]

Screaming in hyper-bold it would appear that you’re the one losing and frustrated beyond self management, shrug.

Yeah, who throws temper tantrums when they are winning an argument?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The difference between the unemployment rate in January 2017 and now is less than 1%.
There is no difference between the LFPR then and now.

Oh Boy...Great F*cking job Donald!

There is in the working age LFPR:



That is a very clear trend reversal. Why do you insist on dissembling about this stuff? The economy has gotten markedly better since Obama took his boot off the neck of capitalism in America. You can run from that, but you can't hide - I will hound you every time you try to mischaracterize the economy.

 

[middleview]

There is in the working age LFPR:

View attachment 39421

That is a very clear trend reversal. Why do you insist on dissembling about this stuff? The economy has gotten markedly better since Obama took his boot off the neck of capitalism in America. You can run from that, but you can't hide - I will hound you every time you try to mischaracterize the economy.

Ah, so now you want to focus on just 25 to 54. Is that because the total LFPR shows no improvement at all? It was 62.7 in December 2016 and that is what it is now.

16 years old and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.1 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.7
2013 63.7 63.4 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.3 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.9
2014 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8
2015 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.7 62.6 62.6 62.3 62.5 62.5 62.7
2016 62.8 62.9 63.0 62.8 62.6 62.7 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7
2017 62.9 62.9 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.9 63.0 62.7 62.7 62.7
2018 62.7 63.0 62.9 62.8 62.7


https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Ah, so now you want to focus on just 25 to 54. Is that because the total LFPR shows no improvement at all? It was 62.7 in December 2016 and that is what it is now.

16 years old and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.1 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.7
2013 63.7 63.4 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.3 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.9
2014 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8
2015 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.7 62.6 62.6 62.3 62.5 62.5 62.7
2016 62.8 62.9 63.0 62.8 62.6 62.7 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7
2017 62.9 62.9 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.9 63.0 62.7 62.7 62.7
2018 62.7 63.0 62.9 62.8 62.7


https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

It's because it is the most relevant cohort. These are the folks who need to be working if your left wing socialist paradise is going to be even remotely affordable. I've always focused on this cohort as the most relevant measure of LFPR. When the left was insisting that the decline in LFPR under Obama was simply "baby boomers retiring," I (correctly) pointed out that some of the biggest declines were in the working age population, while the older cohort actually exhibited an INCREASED LFPR. It was relevant then and it is relevant now.

 

[middleview]

It's because it is the most relevant cohort. These are the folks who need to be working if your left wing socialist paradise is going to be even remotely affordable. I've always focused on this cohort as the most relevant measure of LFPR. When the left was insisting that the decline in LFPR under Obama was simply "baby boomers retiring," I (correctly) pointed out that some of the biggest declines were in the working age population, while the older cohort actually exhibited an INCREASED LFPR. It was relevant then and it is relevant now.

Again...the change in unemployment has been less than 1% since January 2017.

LFPR could well show a shift in employment from people over 55 to younger workers...
That is unclear.

What has TRump actually done? You say he has "taken the boot" of government regulation off of private enterprise. Bullshit. The number of jobs created by any source of data shows a continuing trend, not a suddenly better one.

His trade war promises to have a negative impact in many areas...his nuclear hand grenade is something we cannot predict who it will help vs who it will hurt.

 

[reason10]

Screaming in hyper-bold it would appear that you’re the one losing and frustrated beyond self management, shrug.

At some point, that's all you can do to a crack baby liberal.

 

[reason10]

Hahahahahahaha. Care to share what has happened to the deficit when Republicans Have been in charge?

That goes back to the Budget And Impoundment Act of 1974, which created baseline budgeting, something created by DEMOCRATS. And that's why today 75 percent of the federal budget is the WELFARE STATE.

 

[reason10]

So you think SS and Medicare are welfare?

Actually, the United States Supreme Court said that Sosha Curity is Welfare.

 

[reason10]

Changes in deficit by President and party since WWII (rounded to an appropriate number of significant digits based in the data source):

Truman (D): -80%
Eisenhower (R): -50%
Kennedy (D): +70%
Johnson (D): -160%
Nixon (R): +2000%
Ford (R): +2%
Carter (D): +46%
Reagan (R): +94%
Bush (R): +67%
Clinton (D): -150%
Bush (R): +1200%
Obama (D): -53%
Trump (R): +25% after a year in office

Data source: https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

See, THIS is why everybody says liberals are such [Unwelcome language removed] morons. Biased LYING sites like that.

 

[middleview]

Actually, the United States Supreme Court said that Sosha Curity is Welfare.

When?

 

[middleview]

See, THIS is why everybody says liberals are such [Unwelcome language removed] morons. Biased LYING sites like that.

what was the national debt in 1980? How about when Clinton got his first budget in Sept 1993? Under Reagan/Bush it went from $900b up to $4t....

 

[middleview]

See, THIS is why everybody says liberals are such [Unwelcome language removed] morons. Biased LYING sites like that.

I notice you did not bring any kind of facts with you

 

[ObamacareForever]

That goes back to the Budget And Impoundment Act of 1974, which created baseline budgeting, something created by DEMOCRATS. And that's why today 75 percent of the federal budget is the WELFARE STATE.

There is nothing in that piece of legislation that has prevented Republicans from the reducing the deficit when they are in charge.

 

[middleview]

That goes back to the Budget And Impoundment Act of 1974, which created baseline budgeting, something created by DEMOCRATS. And that's why today 75 percent of the federal budget is the WELFARE STATE.

That bill did not mandate a massive bump in defense spending under Reagan...when the national debt went from $900 billion up to $4 trillion by the time Clinton pushed his first budget through.

How did Clinton get the budget to nearly balance and the deficit to just about zero?

Here is the act itself.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-bill/7130

 

[reason10]

When?

The case is Flemming V. Nestor (1960)
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-social-security

The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”

Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.

The Court said something similar in Helvering V. Davis (1937)

The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.

 

[reason10]

Nobel Laureate Robert Samuelson, (often referred to as the Father Of Modern Economics) had this to say about Sosha Curity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602926.html

Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in 2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.

The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly exhausted, a presidential commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear as the number of retirees rises.

Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision ( Flemming v. Nestor ), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.

All this makes Social Security "welfare."

 

[Montecresto]

At some point, that's all you can do to a crack baby liberal.

What makes you think he’s a crack baby? And politicians aside, most liberals do not support war, shrug.

 

[reason10]

If you want to know why the Supreme Court ruled in such a fashion, I have a theory.
Sosha Curity payouts are a heavy handed government version of an annuity that has been annuitized. (There's actually such a word.) The idea is the financial institution (life insurance company, bank, other investment company) figures out a lifetime income where the principal funds will never run out and interest will accrue. This becomes a bet between the company and the person taking out the annuity.

There ARE very strict and strenuous government regulations on companies that offer annuities, especially concerning their financial health. Hold the United States government to the same standards? (Where Democrats have spent us TRILLIONS in debt?) Not gonna happen. So government CANNOT be in the annuity business, not even remotely along the lines of the private sector. I suspect that's why the cases went through the court systems when this massive boondoggle was first conceived.

 

[reason10]

What makes you think he’s a crack baby? And politicians aside, most liberals do not support war, shrug.

Oh, they support war, so long as the American president who gets us in a war is a DEMOCRAT. That makes liberals not only crack babies but HYPOCRITES.

 

[Montecresto]

Oh, they support war, so long as the American president who gets us in a war is a DEMOCRAT. That makes liberals not only crack babies but HYPOCRITES.

That makes them a partisan, like you.