Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling."
You constantly dodge my questions, you constantly claim that I'm a blind Trump supporter, and you constantly claim that I said things, which I would never ever say. I've pointed that stuff out to you 100 times, and you keep doing it. I don't know how to respond.
"Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint."
OK. Let's just stick to this. So you'd rather have a sweet person as POTUS, but with bad results? Is that what you're saying?
Absolutely not, but that does not mean the bull#^&#^&#^&#^& Trump pulls and has been allowed to by the Trumplicans in Congress is acceptable to me.
Just once, JUST THIS ONE TIME, can you please answer that question exactly as I asked it?
"What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time"
You might be right. But why did the GOP pick up Senate seats? Trump is one guy. He's not the whole party.
Trump picked up Senate seats in very red states and by lower margins than he was elected by, not a great thing going into 2020.
"You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?"
Not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying I didn't care about unemployment when Obama was POTUS, you are elying again. I've said 1,000 times that Obama gets good marks for his impact on unemployment and the stock market. So does Trump. SO please tell me what I "missed"?
Pete' let's see who is the blind partisan denier, me or you...I gave Obama credit for helping unemployment under his watch. Can you do the same with Trump? What do you have to say, about unemployment under Trump? I am curious to see how you answer that.
|
Here's what I was saying there, you seem to have skimmed over it the first time.
Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.
If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.
The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.
The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.
The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.
Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!
Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.
For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.
In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.
Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.
https://youtu.be/YVfNFJ9mUiE