American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;438730][b]Facts matter[/b][/QUOTE][U][b]Here's some facts for you,[/b][/U]

I can't keep my Doctor!

I can't keep my policy!

I did not get a $2500 reduction in my health care premium!

[B][size=+1]And those are facts, Jack![/size][/B]

[QUOTE=Punter127;438731][U][b]Here's some facts for you,[/b][/U]

I can't keep my Doctor!

I can't keep my policy!

I did not get a $2500 reduction in my health care premium![/QUOTE]Punter, Esten notes that "Democrats are very proud of the Affordable Care Act," which will provide health insurance to Americans. Except for the 30 million that still won't have it in 2022, according to the CBO. Therefore I am highly skeptical of your claims. Let's review the facts.

(1) There is no evidence that you can't keep your Doctor.

(2) There is no evidence that you can't keep your policy.

(3) There is no evidence that you did not get a $2500 reduction in your health care premium.

Please note that anything you say will not be accepted as evidence. You might be lying. Therefore you must produce evidence supported by the body of information reported in the media in order for the evidence to be accepted. If your physician and insurance company are under ethical or legal restrictions that prohibit them from disclosing to the press that you are no longer a client, then you've got a problem. Furthermore, and this is important, you must establish that your doctor and your insurance company were involved in COORDINATED ACTIVITY before we will accept that either dropped you.

Statistical evidence absolutely will not be accepted. If your insurance company dropped 90% of its customers in your state, that's not evidence. So that you may better understand this point, you may compare it to what a New York Times blogger and the House Ways and Means Committee staff produced for the number of approvals granted by the IRS for Tea Party versus Progressive groups. That's not valid. Numbers just confuse me.

Finally, hypothetically, what if a Mr. Clois Clerner, a high level bureaucrat at Health & Human Services, wrote that "the Punter matter is very dangerous," because it could be used to reinforce a court ruling on Obamacare that the Administration believes helped Republicans? Nope, that doesn't wash. Facts and evidence are the exclusive domain of those on the left. Everything else is a duck painting.

Most of you republicans do not care about the Facts.

Christiebridgegate.

He hired his own investigators.

Not one of his appointees has been interviewed.

Jackson.

One Big Cover Up.

Lets hear your Cover up reasons?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438733]Everything else is a duck painting.[/QUOTE]A duck painting?

[QUOTE=Jackson;438740]A duck painting?[/QUOTE]Jackson, see my post regarding if walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it might be a duck post and Esten's comment.

Esten's asserts I and all conservatives are deluded conspiracy nuts and when using the above yard stick we are only looking at a photo of a duck, sort of misses the point but that's Esten.

My response to Esten and his points in his earlier post is: PROVE YOUR 'FACTS' THAT NONE OF THE INCIDENTS HAPPENED.

You night note this is using the Left's favorite ploy of asking you to prove a negative.

Should be entertaining to watch Esten twist in the wind on this one.

Remember Learner is the one who leaked the fact the IRS was improperly targeting conservative groups.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438741]J

Should be entertaining to watch Esten twist in the wind on this one.[/QUOTE]The best way to watch Esten twist in the wind, is to ignore him and his posts. Unless Esten is posting about pussy (I will give him the benefit of the doubt) he is unable to separate fact from fiction.

Tres3

[QUOTE=Tres3;438742]The best way to watch Esten twist in the wind, is to ignore him and his posts. Unless Esten is posting about pussy (I will give him the benefit of the doubt) he is unable to separate fact from fiction.

Tres3[/QUOTE]Au contraire.

Esten provides us with ongoing examples of the kind of arguments concocted by the left to manipulate the LIV.

In tandem, WT69 provides us with ongoing examples of the results of those efforts.

Thanks,

Jax.

[B][size=+1]CA State Sen. Leland Yee Indicted for Arms Trafficking After Supporting Assault Weapons Ban[/size][/B]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438734]Most of you republicans do not care about the Facts.[/QUOTE]"On March 26th gun control proponent and California state senator Leland Yee (D) was indicted on charges of arms trafficking and public corruption.".

"The Associated Press reports that Yee was to receive campaign donations in exchange for various favors, including acquiring arms from a Muslim rebel group. The people with whom the deals were made turned out to be undercover FBI agents.".

[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/26/CA-State-Senator-Who-Supported-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Indicted-On-Arms-Trafficking[/URL]

We hear a lot of anti-gun BS, and whining about Chris Christie and a traffic jam from WT69, but not one word from him about a gun trafficking Democrat right under his nose. Go figure.

[QUOTE=Punter127;438731][U][b]Here's some facts for you,[/b][/U]

I can't keep my Doctor!

I can't keep my policy!

I did not get a $2500 reduction in my health care premium!

[B]And those are facts, Jack![/B][/QUOTE]Glad to see you posting some facts. It's refreshing from all the conspiracy nonsense. It's unfortunate you were in the 5% that couldn't keep your policy, but while the ACA was a factor, maybe you should also consider how much this was your insurance company's decision. About 95% of insured Americans kept their policies. The $2500 reduction was only for a family of four. And it was only "up to" a $2500 reduction, although Obama did not consistently use this qualifier, or his qualifiers on keeping your plan. He oversimplified and overpromised on many occasions, that's a fact and a valid criticism. Of course, this is the consistent right wing myopic focus only on anything negative. Breitbart and Fox News probably didn't run any positive ACA stories, so maybe I'll post one.

[b]“Oh my goodness, that's terrible”... Those Evil Insurance Companies![/b]

[QUOTE=Esten;438751]Glad to see you posting some facts. It's refreshing from all the conspiracy nonsense. It's unfortunate you were in the 5% that couldn't keep your policy, but while the ACA was a factor, maybe you should also consider how much this was your insurance company's decision. About 95% of insured Americans kept their policies. The $2500 reduction was only for a family of four. And it was only "up to" a $2500 reduction, although Obama did not consistently use this qualifier, or his qualifiers on keeping your plan. He oversimplified and overpromised on many occasions, that's a fact and a valid criticism. Of course, this is the consistent right wing myopic focus only on anything negative. Breitbart and Fox News probably didn't run any positive ACA stories, so maybe I'll post one.[/QUOTE]”There is no evidence” that the insurance companies are to blame, they followed the law as written. Something Obama should try.

BadMan said it best when he said:
[QUOTE=BadMan;437250]
And by the way, fuckk Obama care. Its worthless beyond belief. It was written by the same insurance companies it was supposed to rein in.[snip][/QUOTE] And he was also right when he said:
[QUOTE=BadMan;437297]I understand some people like the illusion of socialized and or affordable healthcare but obamacare isn't that. Its a farce.

All in all, the numbers don't lie.

[URL]http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/529f386569bedd1b34e32de8-538/obama-approval-rating.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE] With you it's always somebody else's fault either you're trying to be deceptive or Tres3 had it right when he said:
[QUOTE=Tres3;438742] Unless Esten is posting about pussy (I will give him the benefit of the doubt) he is unable to separate fact from fiction.[snip] [/QUOTE] Which is it?

Why don't you just admit ObamaCare is a complete cluster fuck, it's reminiscent of Prohibition. The American people are very forgive to those who admit mistakes and ask for forgiveness, but blatant liars pay a price sooner or later. Continue to live the ObamaCare lie and the Democrat party will be crucified, not just in the up coming election but for years to come as more and more people get hurt by ObamaCare!

[QUOTE]”There is no evidence” that the insurance companies are to blame, they followed the law as written. [/QUOTE]Wrong again Punter. The health care law allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans, and to decide which plans they grandfathered. This is a fact. These plans didn't automatically become financially unsustainable, because many of them are still being offered. The insurance companies made choices to drop plans, like they did every single year before the ACA became law, especially in the individual insurance market. The ACA did force non-grandfathered plans that didn't meet the ACA minimum requirements to be cancelled. For grandfathered plans, it was the insurance company's decision.

This guy actually wrote Obama, and they put his letter on the whitehouse website. You've got to think that every Republican who has benefitted from the new law, knows what a lie all the right wing emotional attacks are.

[URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/29/1288174/--Staunch-Republican-ObamaCare-Works[/URL]

[QUOTE]
Good afternoon,

I am a staunch Republican, a self-proclaimed Fox News addict, and I didn't vote for the President. And I'm here to tell you that Obamacare works. I'm living proof.

I'm a chemotherapy patient, and was previously paying $428 a month for my health coverage. I was not thrilled when it was cancelled.

Then I submitted an application at HealthCare.gov. I looked at my options. And I signed up for a plan for $62 a month.

It's the best health care I have ever had.

So right now, here's what I want to tell anyone who still needs health insurance, or knows someone who does:

Sign up. Follow the instructions on the website. Apply, and look at your options. You still have time, and take it from me: This is something you want to do.

I wrote a letter to President Obama this past February to tell him about my experience with the Health Insurance Marketplace. I hoped he'd read it, and he did.

I may not be a supporter of the President. But now, I get mad when I see Obamacare dragged through the mud on television.

And even though I regularly tune in to conservative pundits, I'd like to tell them they're getting it wrong. Obamacare works.

So one more time: If you still need health insurance, you have just three days to get it. Do what I did. Go to HealthCare.gov, submit an application, and pick a plan that works for you.

It just might change your life.

Mark D. Bearden, Ph.D.
Monroe, North Carolina
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;438781]Wrong again Punter. The health care law allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans, and to decide which plans they grandfathered. This is a fact. These plans didn't automatically become financially unsustainable, because many of them are still being offered. The insurance companies made choices to drop plans, like they did every single year before the ACA became law, especially in the individual insurance market. The ACA did force non-grandfathered plans that didn't meet the ACA minimum requirements to be cancelled. For grandfathered plans, it was the insurance company's decision.[/QUOTE]Funny thing my plan was dropped because it "did not meet the affordable health care act requirements." (I guess they should have checked with you) Of course that was before Obama started using his pen and his phone to circumvent the constitution. I'm unaware of any grandfather clause in the [U]original[/U] written law. Even if it was in the original law, which I don't think it was, why would they want to grandfather my policy when they can demand I buy something I don't want or need and cost more. So much for reining in the insurance companies.

[QUOTE=Esten;438781]Wrong again Punter. The health care law allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans, and to decide which plans they grandfathered. This is a fact. These plans didn't automatically become financially unsustainable, because many of them are still being offered. The insurance companies made choices to drop plans, like they did every single year before the ACA became law, especially in the individual insurance market. The ACA did force non-grandfathered plans that didn't meet the ACA minimum requirements to be cancelled. For grandfathered plans, it was the insurance company's decision.[/QUOTE]You are misinformed Esten, ObamaCare as written and passed by the Democrats and signed by Obama provides specific deadline dates without "grandfather" clauses. If you can find one in the bill please place it here for we poor deluded, conspiracy driven conservatives to see in black and white. I'm not talking about all the waivers Obama handed out to his friends. Good luck with that.

What happened was Obama waved his magic wand back in 2013 after the uproar over individual policy cancelations due to non-conformance with Obamacare mandates and again this year regarding the coming cancelations of company policies in September, October and November for non-conforming plans. If you would take the time to check the several states insurance commissioners declined to follow Obama's magic wand proposal but followed the law as written. I suspect the same thing will occur again this year.

Obama's magic wand trick was a publicity stunt in an attempt to shift the blame from Obama, the Democrats and ObamaCare to the states insurance commissioners. "See we told them it was ok to issue the policies but those mean old insurance commissioners are to blame if your policy is canceled not us". The policies were canceled and not reissued or "grandfathered" as there is no provision in the written law as passed to facilitate this. The commissioners followed the law as enacted.

[QUOTE=Esten;438781]Wrong again Punter. The health care law allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans, and to decide which plans they grandfathered. This is a fact.[/QUOTE]This "headline" from Esten's comment is what the LIV will read.

It's irrelevant to Esten that his headline is inaccurate.

The only thing important to Esten is that he got his headline published, because he knows that there are some LIVs browsing even this lonely thread, and that those LIV's will glance at his headline and then move on to other threads about pussy while subconsciously thinking "[I]See, just like I heard before, it's the insurance companies fault and those rascally conservatives are lying again[/I]."

Mission accomplished.

Jax.

Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;438796]Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]So, true. And that poor, dumb, PHD sob that Esten quoted doesn't realize the premium increase freight train that is headed his way. $62 teaser premium this year. Next year, the portion of the premium he pays will rise to about $200 due to the insurance surcharge and the 20% projected premium increase. Of course, that premium increase is based upon the full premium, not the subsidized amount. That $200 2014 premium is assuming his salary stays in the 20 k range. If he makes a decent living, his premiums will go to around $800 month. Yeah, he is much better off.

The best thing about Obamacare is that it ensures the next president will not be a Democrat.

[QUOTE=Tres3;438796]Esten calling fiction a fact and vice versa is easy for him because he is unable to tell the difference between the two.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Actually, it's easy for him.

If the information being offered supports his position, then it's a fact.

It the information contradicts his position, then it's fiction.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Esten;438782]Letter from a "staunch Republican"

This guy actually wrote Obama, and they put his letter on the whitehouse website. You've got to think that every Republican who has benefitted from the new law, knows what a lie all the right wing emotional attacks are.[/QUOTE]Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.

[QUOTE=Jackson;438804]Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.[/QUOTE]Jackson, why would I do that? That's how the law works, making healthcare insurance more affordable for low income families via subsidies / tax credits.

Got to love Dccpa's post, calling a Republican a "dumb sob" and then predicting the next president will (in effect) be a Republican. Classic. As far as his numbers, there is no way at this point to accurately project the rate of future premium increases, but even his dubious higher number is a much better deal than what that "dumb sob" had before ACA.

The provision to grandfather health plans goes back to 2010, though if Doppel and Punter want to get technical, no it was not in the original ACA law itself. No new law of that scope has all the regulations established and finalized upon passage. The grandfather provision was in the regulations issued a few months after the law passed. Still in 2010. It's a pointless distinction that doesn't change the substance of my argument, and that the insurance companies themselves don't even bother to make when they explain grandfathered plans. Since some of you are so sure that the insurance companies had no choice whatsoever, maybe it's time for a "LIV Challenge".

[QUOTE=Esten;438806]Jackson, why would I do that? That's how the law works, making healthcare insurance more affordable for low income families via subsidies / tax credits.

Got to love Dccpa's post, calling a Republican a "dumb sob" and then predicting the next president will (in effect) be a Republican. Classic. As far as his numbers, there is no way at this point to accurately project the rate of future premium increases, but even his dubious higher number is a much better deal than what that "dumb sob" had before ACA.

The provision to grandfather health plans goes back to 2010, though if Doppel and Punter want to get technical, no it was not in the original ACA law itself. No new law of that scope has all the regulations established and finalized upon passage. The grandfather provision was in the regulations issued a few months after the law passed. Still in 2010. It's a pointless distinction that doesn't change the substance of my argument, and that the insurance companies themselves don't even bother to make when they explain grandfathered plans. Since some of you are so sure that the insurance companies had no choice whatsoever, maybe it's time for a "LIV Challenge".[/QUOTE]Esten, there is no "Grandfather" clause nor subsequent "regulations" beyond the cynical attempt by Obama waving his not so magic wand and the Democrats to shift blame from themselves to the state insurance commissioner and / or the insurance companies who are following the law as written.

A pathetic shell game by Obama in a cynical attempt to save Democrats during the mid-term elections of 2014. With any luck there the Republicans will win the senate and there will be enough scared Democrats to insure Obama's Veto pen has no ink.

[QUOTE=Jackson;438804]Show me a letter like that from somebody who isn't getting a subsidy.[/QUOTE]Mongers-.

Lets make sure we all understand Jackson's position on healthcare subsidies:

-It IS acceptable for Jackson himself to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in Argentina (a country he is NOT a citizen of).

- It is NOT acceptable for US citizens to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in the USA.

Thanks,

ElAlamoPalermo (formerly Rock Harders).

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;438865]Mongers-.

Lets make sure we all understand Jackson's position on healthcare subsidies:

-It IS acceptable for Jackson himself to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in Argentina (a country he is NOT a citizen of).

- It is NOT acceptable for US citizens to benefit from subsidized health insurance / healthcare in the USA.

Thanks,

ElAlamoPalermo (formerly Rock Harders).[/QUOTE]This is not a good comparison when you look at the service here in Argentina compared to the states. In the states they do what is needed and fairly quickly and efficiently (at least in my past experiences) In Argentina if you are receiving subsidized medical care the only people who get rapid medical attention are those in danger of dieing, and there are times that even those patients (those who are dieing but could be saved) don't get the rapid attention they need.

I have been to the Aleman Hospital about four times. I waited no more than half an hour to see the doctor.

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;438866]This is not a good comparison when you look at the service here in Argentina compared to the states. In the states they do what is needed and fairly quickly and efficiently (at least in my past experiences) In Argentina if you are receiving subsidized medical care the only people who get rapid medical attention are those in danger of dieing, and there are times that even those patients (those who are dieing but could be saved) don't get the rapid attention they need.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438869]I have been to the Aleman Hospital about four times. I waited no more than half an hour to see the doctor.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand your point. Aleman is a private hospital, not a public hospital.

Do you or ElAlamoPalermo remember that Jackson said he'd support implementation of the Argentine health care system in the USA? He also said that would have a snowball's chance in hell of happening because USA Politicians don't have the backbone to make it happen.

While Argentina doesn't have the resources of a first world country, Hong Kong has a very similar system, that encompasses public and private sectors. It spends 5% of GDP on health expenditures. With Obamacare we're headed toward 20% of GDP. And outcomes are better in Hong Kong. For example, for males, life expectancy in Hong Kong is 82 years versus 77 years in the USA.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;438864]Jackson-.
Do you consider yourself a parasite for benefiting from subsidized health insurance in Buenos Aires? It is a fact that you and every other person who has ever utilized the health care system in Buenos Aires benefits from enormous subsidies; to begin with, electricity, gas, and water are subsidized to the tune of 70% at all Buenos Aires hospitals and clinics; insurance premiums would be significantly higher if not for this SUBSIDY. Naturally, we should all excuse Jackson from this blatant hypocrisy as he is suffering from a chronic case of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS), a devastating affliction that lasts at least 1460 days but in Jackson's particularly rabid case will continue for at least 2920 days and perhaps beyond that.[/QUOTE]I'm curioius about ElAlamoPalermo's reasoning. Apparently Jackson must either:

a.) move to a country where there's economic freedom and no socialism, or
b.) say good things about socialized or subsidized utility companies and medical care,

or he's a hypocrite. This is an idiotic and irrelevant argument to justify Obamacare.

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;438859]This is a tale of the koch's brothers vision of the world to come: they do whatever they want to create wealth and everyone else can drop dead...including the worthless parasites who might only have a net wealth or $5 million or $10 million dollars.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;438861]The most powerful lobbyists get what they want and everyone pays............just what the founding father envisioned. I own lots of drug stocks--they have the deck stacked politically. I buy one non-formulary drug mail order from england for 50% of what it costs in the USA. The drug comes from england in a box that says made in the USA. This shit goes on nomatter which party is in the oval office or control congress.
Under "anne rand" speak: if this great "super men" have the talent to manipulate the system it is their right to do so. Sounds like a variation on Argentina or the traditional way elites robed and plundered in south america for hundreds of years.[/QUOTE]I agree 100% with your second point. Off the subject, I wonder if ElAlamoPalermo would consider you a hypocrite for owning drug stocks.

But you're flipping reality on its head. You disregard that the Democrat politicians you support and mainstream Republicans are the enablers. Instead you put the blame on people like the Koch brothers, who actually have promoted economic freedom and an end to corporate welfare. Marxism, socialism, corporate capitalism, subsidies for all types of "good" causes – they all sound like good ideas that create a fair, prosperous, egalitarian society. Yeah, the Koch brothers might go a little too far with certain things, but history has shown that what they espouse, free market capitalism, produces greater prosperity for all. Just compare Cuba and the Bahamas, Sri Lanka and Singapore, France and the United States (before Obama).

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438872]I don't understand your point. Aleman is a private hospital, not a public hospital.


I'm curioius about ElAlamoPalermo's reasoning. Apparently Jackson must either:

a.) move to a country where there's economic freedom and no socialism, or
b.) say good things about socialized or subsidized utility companies and medical care,

or he's a hypocrite. This is an idiotic and irrelevant argument to justify Obamacare.[/QUOTE]Jackson specifically railed against people receiving subsidized healthcare, going so far as to call them parasites; since Jackson himself benefits enormously from subsidized healthcare, he should accept that he too is a parasite (at least the people Jackson calls "parasites" are receiving these benefits in their own country, whereas Jackson benefits from subsidies as an alien in Argentina). He doesn't have to agree with the way ObamaCare was legislated but in good conscience he should stop railing against the people benefiting from its subsides as doing so makes him the definition of a hypocrite.

March: 192,000
February: 197,000
January: 144,000
Average job growth per month last 12 months: 183,000
Average job growth per month under Bush: 20,000 (58,000 excluding first year; 65,000 excluding last year)

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/04/04/jobs-report-u-s-economy-added-192000-jobs-in-march-unemployment-remains-6-7/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-jobs-created-per-month-by-george-bush-2012-5[/URL]

So much for the Affordable Care Act being a "job killer". These numbers clearly demonstrate the false and empty rhetoric of conservative ideologues.

March, 2014:187,000
February, 2014:187,000
January, 2014:187,000

Average population growth per month last 12 months: 188,000
Estimates from USA Census Bureau
[b]So jobs haven't been growing any faster than population.[/b]

Percentage of population, 16 years and over, employed 1/1/2007: 63.3%
Percentage of population 16 years and older, employed when Obama took office, when the recession was bottoming out: 60.6%
Percentage of population 16 years and older currently employed: 58.9%
Difference between 63.3% and 58.9% of the U.S. population, 16 years and over: 10.6 million additional people who are unemployed or not looking for work, versus January of 2007.

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL]

Congratulations Esten, your man is well on the way to taking us permanently to European levels of unemployment/underemployment. And you compare him to George Bush? Bush was the second worst president during my adult life. Third if you count adolescence - Carter was worse than Bush.

Will you look at that.

The level is lower than when he first took office.

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438893]March, 2014:187,000
February, 2014:187,000
January, 2014:187,000

Average population growth per month last 12 months: 188,000
Estimates from USA Census Bureau
[b]So jobs haven't been growing any faster than population.[/b]

Percentage of population, 16 years and over, employed 1/1/2007: 63.3%
Percentage of population 16 years and older, employed when Obama took office, when the recession was bottoming out: 60.6%
Percentage of population 16 years and older currently employed: 58.9%
Difference between 63.3% and 58.9% of the U.S. population, 16 years and over: 10.6 million additional people who are unemployed or not looking for work, versus January of 2007.

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL]

Congratulations Esten, your man is well on the way to taking us permanently to European levels of unemployment/underemployment. And you compare him to George Bush? Bush was the second worst president during my adult life. Third if you count adolescence - Carter was worse than Bush.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438895]Will you look at that.

The level is lower than when he first took office.

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000[/URL][/QUOTE]Agreed. But that doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work, because they've given up on finding a job. They are not counted as unemployed. The additional 1.7 million people who have gone on social security disability since Obama became president are not counted as unemployed. I believe the majority of these individuals are suffering from back injuries and mental problems like depression.

6.7% unemployment 5 years into a recovery is nothing to brag about. It's consistent with what I wrote, that Obama is bringing the USA more in line with European levels of long-term unemployment.

Also, please look again at the time series I linked to: [URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL].

Some argue that demographic changes account for lower employment. That is, more people are retired. This doesn't make sense to me, given the pattern in the graph. Employment fell off like a stairstep during the recession and recovery to date is minimal. Also, given that we can't afford social security and medicare burdens, older people are going to have to continue working later in life or the country will go bankrupt. The percentage of people over 16 that are employed should be higher than 63% (the level around 2007) by now.

The reports always did the same thing with all Presidents.

Doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work.

Doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work.

Doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work.

Doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work.

Wake Up, Now it is the Republicans that do do want to Hire anyone.

They want a third world economy in the USA.

More Profit for the ONE percent.

I hope you are not one of the Not So Fortunate!!


[QUOTE=Tiny12;438896]Agreed. But that doesn't take into account people who are no longer looking for work, because they've given up on finding a job. They are not counted as unemployed. The additional 1.7 million people who have gone on social security disability since Obama became president are not counted as unemployed. I believe the majority of these individuals are suffering from back injuries and mental problems like depression.

6.7% unemployment 5 years into a recovery is nothing to brag about. It's consistent with what I wrote, that Obama is bringing the USA more in line with European levels of long-term unemployment.

Also, please look again at the time series I linked to: [URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL].

Some argue that demographic changes account for lower employment. That is, more people are retired. This doesn't make sense to me, given the pattern in the graph. Employment fell off like a stairstep during the recession and recovery to date is minimal. Also, given that we can't afford social security and medicare burdens, older people are going to have to continue working later in life or the country will go bankrupt. The percentage of people over 16 that are employed should be higher than 63% (the level around 2007) by now.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438897]...Wake Up, Now it is the Republicans that do do want to Hire anyone.

They want a third world economy in the USA.

More Profit for the ONE percent...[/QUOTE]WT, as usual you're not making any sense.

First, businesses hire employees when they need them to meet an increase in demand for their products or services, period. It has nothing to do with their political beliefs.

Second, I'm pretty sure that business ownership in the USA is more or less proportional across all political parties, and thus it's ridiculous to assume that the Republican business owners are making all of the hiring decisions in the entire country.

Third, why exactly would any investor want to destroy the 1st world economy that is making him rich, in favor of a 3rd world economy that would barely pay any returns on his investments? I know you think it's logical, but the reality is that you have no idea how business or investing works.

Fourth, given that approximately 40% of Americans consider themselves to be Republican, so it's absurd to suggest that 39% of them are going to sit around and allow 1% to destroy the American economy from which we all benefit.

Thanks,

Jax.

WT69, Esten et al argument regarding a dropping unemployment rate is a red herring and meaningless when it ignores the labor force participation rate. Below is the definition of participation rate and it's importance when looking at unemployment figures. Next is the DOL's official participation rates for 01/2009 – 12/2013. I have included the links to both.

It is obvious the unemployment rate is much lower than the actual number of those unemployed as the participation rate has fallen from 65.7% 01/01/2009 to 62.8% 12/31/2013.

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.

Investopedia explains 'Participation Rate'.

The participation rate is an important metric to note when looking at unemployment data because unemployment figures reflect the number of people who are looking for jobs but are unable to secure employment.

The participation rate is important in analyzing the unemployment rate. Those who have no interest in working are not included in the participation rate but are included in the unemployment rate. An aging population can have both a positive and negative effect on the participation rate, through retirement and new people entering the workforce. The participation rate and unemployment data should be observed in tandem to give a better understanding of the overall employment status.

[URL]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp[/URL]

Department of Labor Participation rates.

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438896]6.7% unemployment 5 years into a recovery is nothing to brag about. It's consistent with what I wrote, that Obama is bringing the USA more in line with European levels of long-term unemployment.[/QUOTE]Actually the US trend is significantly divergent from that of Europe: US trending down to 6.7% and Europe trending above 12%. Look at the chart Tiny, you're so far off it's ridiculous.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29040[/ATTACH]

Euro zone unemployment at 12%, while USA Improving
[URL]http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/08/news/economy/us-europe-unemployment/[/URL]

Coming down from the 10's to the 6's after the deepest recession since the Great Depression is a respectable achievement. We are not in the 5's yet because of two macro-trends: government job losses and corporate lean efforts. But remember, conservatives said Obama was going to destroy the US economy, and that the ACA was a big part of it. A decade ago they also said tax cuts were going to be a big job creator, but the statistics show otherwise. Was it lies or ignorance? Either way, they've been wrong on the big issues, time and time again. And now that's it's clear they don't have better policies (they certainly don't have the data to prove it), they are stuck with an agenda of attack and negativity, even within their own party.

Thanks Esten. Then you agree that your post about job growth, without mentioning population growth, was a red herring?

You are right. Instead of just mentioning unemployment, which applies just to people who are actively seeking work, I should have said Obama and other Democrats are bringing us more into line with European unemployment and UNDEREMPLOYMENT, as explained in Doppelganger's post about participation rate. As Doppel's link appears to be broken, I'll post that again here:

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000[/URL]

And you are again right -- instead of 6.7%, the unemployment rate should be in the 5's, maybe even the 4's, five years after the end of the recession. This "Europeanization" of the United States is attributable to policies favored by Obama et al like long term government assistance to people who are not working but could, over-regulation of business, pandering to certain constituencies (example: holding up the Keystone pipeline), and encouraging American corporations through tax regulations to keep their money overseas instead of bringing it back home and investing it. Have corporations (and unincorporated businesses) become leaner as you say, or is government discouraging them from investing in America? In any event, the percentage of working-aged people employed is lower because of Obama and other Democrats.

I also agree with you that Obamacare has probably not significantly effected employment, yet. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that's going to kick in after 2016, and Obamacare will result in 1.5% to 2% fewer hours worked in 2017 to 2024.

There indeed has been a fall off in employment during the 13 years after the Bush tax cuts, which did not cut the 35% federal tax rate on corporations, and which were left in place by Obama for everyone except the 1% of the population that he villianizes. Is there cause and effect? No. Tax cuts have a positive effect on employment in the private sector. The 2008/2009 recession, Obama's policies, and 9/11 are the culprits. And 9/11 and 2008/2009 are long gone. I'd also point blame towards wasteful government spending and deficits under Obama and Bush, but believe that only effects employment adversely in the long term. One of the solutions implied in your post, more government employees, doesn't make sense to me given that government is already 40% of the economy. Yeah, we could go out and hire lots more teachers, regulators, people in the armed services, etc., and in the short term that would increase the number of the employed. It's not a wise course for the future though.

Finally, we're both remiss in not adding globalization, free trade and technology to the equation. I believe these are good btw, even though they may decrease employment in a country where the government isn't pursuing sound (i.e. neoliberal) economic policies.

Tiny, you are closer to the truth than Esten, he only uses numbers that agree with his bias.

Europe's stats more closely follow what we call the U6 unemployment rate.

While the Obama administration was trumpeting DOL's reported 6.7% unemployment rate the U6 was almost twice that rate at 12.6%.

Esten's comparison of the U3 to European unemployment rates is apples to oranges. Our U6 rate more closely mirrors European calculations for unemployment so we do look a lot like Europe with a U6 of 12.6%.

Very interesting, Thanks for that Doppelganger. That confirms to me that the % employed (or participation rate) is more meaningful than "unemployment". I did figure that measuring unemployment the way the USA Government does would be difficult. How do you figure when someone has stopped looking for work? Why are certain people without jobs considered unemployed and others not? But I didn't consider that when you start comparing the figure between countries, you run into differences in how the numbers are calculated.

[B]Esten's Disinformation Headline:[/B] "[I]Coming down from the 10's to the 6's after the deepest recession since the Great Depression is a respectable achievement.[/I]"

[B]LIV's Impression:[/B] "[I]Wow, the unemployment rate under President Obama has dropped from 10% to 6%. That's really good! I heard those nasty Republicans were lying all along, always trying to fuck things up for the rest of us.[/I]"

[B]The Facts:[/B] Job growth hasn't even kept up with the population growth. In addition, anybody who understands this subject knows that the only real employment barometer is the percentage of citizens who actually have jobs, not the so called "unemployment rate" which can and is manipulated by the entirely subjective determination of who is and is not looking for work.

[B]The Result:[/B] Esten's Disinformation Headline wins again, because that's the only thing the LIV read.

Thanks,

Jax.

The long=term chart is more interesting than the ten-year chart.

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2014_all_period_M03_data.gif[/URL]

I do not think that labor participation is good metric on which to evaluate a president. You might think Jimmy Carter was the best! At least that is where the curve is at its steepest slope.

BLS thinks the fall is do to the the following factors:

"The BLS lists the following factors as primary drivers of the decline in the LFP rate since 2000: (1) the aging of the baby boomer cohort; (2) the decline in the participation rate of those 16-24 years old; (3) the declining LFP rate of women (since its peak in 1999), and (4) the continuous decline of the LFP rate of men (since the 1940's). The main factors that keep the aggregate LFP rate from falling further are the increase of the LFP rate of those 55 and older and the strong attachment to the labor force of Hispanic and Asian people, who constitute the main share of the immigrant population.".

The Fed thinks that the fall in the rate is mainly due to the composition of the labor force.

"The BLS-projected change in the aggregate LFP rate between 2010 and 2020 can be broken into two components: (1) the change in the age composition of the population, and (2) the change in the LFP rates of different age groups. We found that the change in the age composition of the population accounted for most (2.18 out of 2.20 percentage points) of the decline in the aggregate LFP rate over the period. Specifically, this 2.18-percentage-point contribution to the LFP rate decline was mostly driven by a 3-percentage-point decrease in the population share of those 45-54 years old. In contrast to the 2.18-percentage-point decline in the LFP rate that resulted from changes in the age composition of the population, the change in the aggregate LFP rate due to the changes in the LFP rates of different age groups is almost zero on net. It is important to note that this value is the result of dissimilar dynamics of individual groups rather than consistent behavior of the population. For example, the largest contributions to the increase in the aggregate LFP rate are posted by those 55-64 years old (0.63 percentage points) and 65-74 years old (0.65 percentage points). Yet the increases in the LFP rates of these older workers are almost completely nullified by the decreases in the LFP rates of those 16-19 years old (–0.55 percentage points) and 20-24 years old (–0.44 percentage points).".

I think this issue was known problem in 2000 but nobody that I read or heard speak had the decline going this fast.