Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,142 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Reality Check

Camden, AR

#25153 Jun 1, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"steady participation with only SLIGHT declines"
I thought steady and decline were two different actions.
No, going from 67% to 66% over 8 years is a steady participation with only slight declines. However, going from 66% to 63% in just over 5 years is going off the cliff. Especially since there is nothing to indicate things are getting better or will get better in the next 4 years. Things look like they will only get worse.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#25154 Jun 1, 2013
Correction. Just over 4 years which makes it even worse.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25155 Jun 1, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you care to discuss how the unemployment numbers aren't as good as liberals would have you to believe because the participation rate is so low? And yes, given this fact, I would like to know how many new jobs have replaced the old jobs that were lost AND the wages associated with them. You won't be able to get around the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years, if ANY new jobs have been created that they are low wage jobs (58% compared to 27% mid-wage and 15% high wage), the fact that family disposable income has dropped 40% under Obama, more people are on government assistance than ever which doesn't signify a robust or even growing economy, and the one group that supports Obama as president has suffered the worst which is the black population. All of this rests on your leader's shoulders and not Bush's, or Congress, or the Republican party, or the Tea party, or anyone's or anything's shoulders. Just Obama. He promised he could fix America's problems and he hasn't. I would argue that he never intended to.
I would love to, thanks for asking.

First what Liberal told you that 7.5% unemployment, and I quote, is "GOOD" ? Regardless of the reason.

AND this-"I would like to know how many new jobs have replaced the old jobs" good question BTW

Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office.

Employment hit its low point in February 2010. But since then, about 4.8 million net new jobs have been created,


AND THIS:

"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"


Have you lost your mind? In the carter years there was Aprox. 100 million in the work force and in Jan'81 7.5% of those were unemployed.

As of December 2012 there were 134.02 million employed persons in the USA.

AND this;

"fact that family disposable income has dropped 40% under Obama"

NOT FACT, not even close.

Middle-class families lost an average of 40% net worth not disposable income. That was mostly in home value decreases due to the housing bust.

And/ G W Bush was the President who lowered the limit to get food stamps.

Last/ "Just Obama"

I assure you the Black peoples struggles with poverty began long before this President was even born.

Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#25156 Jun 2, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love to, thanks for asking.
First what Liberal told you that 7.5% unemployment, and I quote, is "GOOD" ? Regardless of the reason.
AND this-"I would like to know how many new jobs have replaced the old jobs" good question BTW
Had Bush left office one year earlier, in January 2008, his performance would have looked quite good, with 5.6 million jobs created during his tenure. But the economy tanked in 2008, hemorrhaging 4.5 million jobs during Bush's last year in office.
Employment hit its low point in February 2010. But since then, about 4.8 million net new jobs have been created,
AND THIS:
"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"
Have you lost your mind? In the carter years there was Aprox. 100 million in the work force and in Jan'81 7.5% of those were unemployed.
As of December 2012 there were 134.02 million employed persons in the USA.
AND this;
"fact that family disposable income has dropped 40% under Obama"
NOT FACT, not even close.
Middle-class families lost an average of 40% net worth not disposable income. That was mostly in home value decreases due to the housing bust.
And/ G W Bush was the President who lowered the limit to get food stamps.
Last/ "Just Obama"
I assure you the Black peoples struggles with poverty began long before this President was even born.
Every liberal I hear says "Things are getting better". How can they be getting better when there are less people working now than since the Carter era (35 years) but because the unemployment rate has gone from 10% to 7.5% liberals are praising Obama's efforts. Your giving the numbers of employed tells me you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today.
You are correct in the personal wealth vs. disposable income aspect. However that doesn't mean that disposable income isn't down significantly. Median wages are down 8.2% under Obama while things like gas prices are up 83%, beef 20%, bacon 13%, and all food as a group is up 8.3%, retail goods are up anywhere from 20% to 50%, and worst of all our government is printing money at a frantic pace causing the value of our dollar to plummet while wages go down. So the number may actually be close to 40% but I don't believe there is any way to quantify it.
As for blacks, they may have struggled with poverty for a long time but Obama's policies have been much harder on them than past presidents. Obama has taken advantage of blacks wanting "one of their own" in a position of power and their ignorance of political policies and how they affect quality of life. Obviously, not all blacks are ignorant of political process but the vast majority of blacks have no clue about politics.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25157 Jun 2, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Every liberal I hear says "Things are getting better". How can they be getting better when there are less people working now than since the Carter era (35 years) but because the unemployment rate has gone from 10% to 7.5% liberals are praising Obama's efforts. Your giving the numbers of employed tells me you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today.
You are correct in the personal wealth vs. disposable income aspect. However that doesn't mean that disposable income isn't down significantly. Median wages are down 8.2% under Obama while things like gas prices are up 83%, beef 20%, bacon 13%, and all food as a group is up 8.3%, retail goods are up anywhere from 20% to 50%, and worst of all our government is printing money at a frantic pace causing the value of our dollar to plummet while wages go down. So the number may actually be close to 40% but I don't believe there is any way to quantify it.
As for blacks, they may have struggled with poverty for a long time but Obama's policies have been much harder on them than past presidents. Obama has taken advantage of blacks wanting "one of their own" in a position of power and their ignorance of political policies and how they affect quality of life. Obviously, not all blacks are ignorant of political process but the vast majority of blacks have no clue about politics.

YOU SAID


YOU SAID

"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"

and then say

"you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today"

Look at what you wrote, then tell how 134.02 million employed persons could be less than a work pool of 100 million .

BTW-That difference in the two numbers 34.02 million plus people.

That would be the population growth from the 70's you say I did not account for.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25158 Jun 2, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Every liberal I hear says "Things are getting better". How can they be getting better when there are less people working now than since the Carter era (35 years) but because the unemployment rate has gone from 10% to 7.5% liberals are praising Obama's efforts. Your giving the numbers of employed tells me you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today.
You are correct in the personal wealth vs. disposable income aspect. However that doesn't mean that disposable income isn't down significantly. Median wages are down 8.2% under Obama while things like gas prices are up 83%, beef 20%, bacon 13%, and all food as a group is up 8.3%, retail goods are up anywhere from 20% to 50%, and worst of all our government is printing money at a frantic pace causing the value of our dollar to plummet while wages go down. So the number may actually be close to 40% but I don't believe there is any way to quantify it.
As for blacks, they may have struggled with poverty for a long time but Obama's policies have been much harder on them than past presidents. Obama has taken advantage of blacks wanting "one of their own" in a position of power and their ignorance of political policies and how they affect quality of life. Obviously, not all blacks are ignorant of political process but the vast majority of blacks have no clue about politics.

"the vast majority of blacks have no clue about politics"

Lets be fair here, the same can be said of all races, and for the heck of it lets add the Christian right to those ranks as well.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#25159 Jun 2, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU SAID
"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"
and then say
"you know that I'm right because you didn't take into account population growth from the 70's until today"
Look at what you wrote, then tell how 134.02 million employed persons could be less than a work pool of 100 million .
BTW-That difference in the two numbers 34.02 million plus people.
That would be the population growth from the 70's you say I did not account for.
Final time Barney. The rate is a percentage and not a gross number. if you have 100 people working out of out of 151 you have a 66% participation rate. Now lets say that the population grows to 200 and the workforce participation rate goes to 132. While you have more people working, you also have more people not participating but the percentage is still 66%. The two situations are exactly the same. The population in America in 1977 was around 210 million. Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million. And just to remind you that the number we are talking about is a percentage. The lengths you will go to to defend your socialistic views is really extraordinary.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25160 Jun 2, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Final time Barney. The rate is a percentage and not a gross number. if you have 100 people working out of out of 151 you have a 66% participation rate. Now lets say that the population grows to 200 and the workforce participation rate goes to 132. While you have more people working, you also have more people not participating but the percentage is still 66%. The two situations are exactly the same. The population in America in 1977 was around 210 million. Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million. And just to remind you that the number we are talking about is a percentage. The lengths you will go to to defend your socialistic views is really extraordinary.
ROF-LMAO

""the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"

So now its a percentage of the total people, did I read that right?

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25161 Jun 2, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Final time Barney. The rate is a percentage and not a gross number. if you have 100 people working out of out of 151 you have a 66% participation rate. Now lets say that the population grows to 200 and the workforce participation rate goes to 132. While you have more people working, you also have more people not participating but the percentage is still 66%. The two situations are exactly the same. The population in America in 1977 was around 210 million. Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million. And just to remind you that the number we are talking about is a percentage. The lengths you will go to to defend your socialistic views is really extraordinary.
"Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million"

You and reading comprehension are not the best of friends are you, or are you shifting on purpose?

Read what I said..........

As of December 2012 there were 134.02 million employed persons in the USA.

WTF does the population of the U.S. have to do with the above statement?

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25162 Jun 2, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Final time Barney. The rate is a percentage and not a gross number. if you have 100 people working out of out of 151 you have a 66% participation rate. Now lets say that the population grows to 200 and the workforce participation rate goes to 132. While you have more people working, you also have more people not participating but the percentage is still 66%. The two situations are exactly the same. The population in America in 1977 was around 210 million. Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million. And just to remind you that the number we are talking about is a percentage. The lengths you will go to to defend your socialistic views is really extraordinary.
Look here, I know what you meant when you posted this.

"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"

Keep in mind this post is freestanding from other post you wrote on this particular subject. Someone reading that post for the first time would have took it for what it said, not what you meant. What you said is completely wrong.

What you were trying to say was:

The percentage of the total available workforce working today is the lowest it has been since the Carter years.

That would have been correct, and I would have said, oh yeah, what verifiable evidence do you have that it is derogatory to the economy. Assuming that was your point or you saying the UE is higher than those nasty Liberals say it is and its that damn Black mans fault.

Never mind the majority of that group is unemployed because they choose to be, such as students or those who took early retirement, etc.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25163 Jun 2, 2013
Between 1970 and 2010, the
enrollment rate for adults ages 2024 increased from 22
to 39 percent, and the rate for adults ages 2529 increased
from 8 to 15 percent. The enrollment rate for adults ages
3034 increased from 4 percent in 1970 to 8 percent in
2010. Between 2000 and 2010, the enrollment rate for
adults ages 2024 increased from 32 to 39 percent; for
adults ages 2529, it increased from 11 to 15 percent; and
for adults ages 3034, it increased from 7 to 8 percent.
Tomagotchi

Kennett, MO

#25165 Jun 2, 2013
Things Are Def Not Like They Once Were...In 76'..that's for sure
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#25166 Jun 2, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Look here, I know what you meant when you posted this.
"the fact that the total number of people working under Obama is the lowest since the Carter years"
Keep in mind this post is freestanding from other post you wrote on this particular subject. Someone reading that post for the first time would have took it for what it said, not what you meant. What you said is completely wrong.
What you were trying to say was:
The percentage of the total available workforce working today is the lowest it has been since the Carter years.
That would have been correct, and I would have said, oh yeah, what verifiable evidence do you have that it is derogatory to the economy. Assuming that was your point or you saying the UE is higher than those nasty Liberals say it is and its that damn Black mans fault.
Never mind the majority of that group is unemployed because they choose to be, such as students or those who took early retirement, etc.
Just to be clear, you are saying that the majority of those who were in the workforce when unemployment was 10% simply said "From this day forward I CHOOSE to be unemployed!" and that's how the rate went down to 7.5%. Uh ok. In all seriousness, I do agree with you. Those individuals had been looking for work for years with no luck. They got tired of being shot down so they decided to quit looking and drop out of the pool. Which goes back to my point that those who drop out may never return to the workforce and will forever become a governmental handout statistic. My post meant exactly what it said. There was no implied meaning contrary to the content no matter how hard you try to twist it's meaning.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#25167 Jun 2, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"Today, the population in America is 310 million which is a difference of 100 million, 65.98 million more than your 34.02 million"
You and reading comprehension are not the best of friends are you, or are you shifting on purpose?
Read what I said..........
As of December 2012 there were 134.02 million employed persons in the USA.
WTF does the population of the U.S. have to do with the above statement?
It's all about percentages. You were arguing that 134.02 million in 2012 was a greater number than the 100 million in 1981. Yes, I agree that 134.02 million is larger than 100 million. I am unsuccessfully trying to get you to see that if you add 100 million Americans to the population by 2012 then you are no longer comparing apples to apples. Lets try this 7.5% of 100 million is 7.5 million that were unemployed in 1981. In 2012 you say there were 134.02 employed people in the U.S. The unemployment rate today is 7.5%, correct? That means the workforce has grown to 144,886,486 right? That means that 10,866,486 are unemployed so would it be fair for me to say that since we have 3,366,486 more unemployed now than in 1981 that things are far worse? Since it's using your logic I guess you would agree with that assessment. I'm glad to know you have come over to my side on this.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25168 Jun 2, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to be clear, you are saying that the majority of those who were in the workforce when unemployment was 10% simply said "From this day forward I CHOOSE to be unemployed!" and that's how the rate went down to 7.5%. Uh ok. In all seriousness, I do agree with you. Those individuals had been looking for work for years with no luck. They got tired of being shot down so they decided to quit looking and drop out of the pool. Which goes back to my point that those who drop out may never return to the workforce and will forever become a governmental handout statistic. My post meant exactly what it said. There was no implied meaning contrary to the content no matter how hard you try to twist it's meaning.
No, I am saying that is why there has been a steady decline since 1999 of eligible workers, not working because they chose not to.

Say you were correct that was the cause of the drop.

How do you explain those who become age eligible for employment each day is not driving up the unemployment rate?



Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25169 Jun 3, 2013
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all about percentages. You were arguing that 134.02 million in 2012 was a greater number than the 100 million in 1981. Yes, I agree that 134.02 million is larger than 100 million. I am unsuccessfully trying to get you to see that if you add 100 million Americans to the population by 2012 then you are no longer comparing apples to apples. Lets try this 7.5% of 100 million is 7.5 million that were unemployed in 1981. In 2012 you say there were 134.02 employed people in the U.S. The unemployment rate today is 7.5%, correct? That means the workforce has grown to 144,886,486 right? That means that 10,866,486 are unemployed so would it be fair for me to say that since we have 3,366,486 more unemployed now than in 1981 that things are far worse? Since it's using your logic I guess you would agree with that assessment. I'm glad to know you have come over to my side on this.
You are flattering yourself thinking, "you have come over to my side on this". I have yet to do so and the chances are looking pretty slim that I won't either.

Nice try you playing rather loosely with the numbers. If you will notice I said the work force was APROXMATILY 100 million. You should have done some research Bud, there were 12 million uninsured at the end of 1981. Today the Bureau of labor will tell you there are 11.7 million unemployed today.

And if you add the 13.5 % inflation to that 12 million unemployed in 1981, shoots the hell out of your theory that,

"3,366,486 more unemployed now than in 1981 that things are far worse"

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25170 Jun 3, 2013
SEE, I told you so but you just would not believe it would you?

I stand behind what I said.

What you said is completely wrong.

What you were trying to say was:

The percentage of the total available workforce working today is the lowest it has been since the Carter years.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#25171 Jun 3, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
You are flattering yourself thinking, "you have come over to my side on this". I have yet to do so and the chances are looking pretty slim that I won't either.
Nice try you playing rather loosely with the numbers. If you will notice I said the work force was APROXMATILY 100 million. You should have done some research Bud, there were 12 million uninsured at the end of 1981. Today the Bureau of labor will tell you there are 11.7 million unemployed today.
And if you add the 13.5 % inflation to that 12 million unemployed in 1981, shoots the hell out of your theory that,
"3,366,486 more unemployed now than in 1981 that things are far worse"
LOL, I meant 12 million unemployed.
Blarney

Jonesboro, AR

#25172 Jun 3, 2013
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I meant 12 million unemployed.
What he meant was that regardless of your statistics, with the current administration, we are in a lot worse position.
The Truth

Stuttgart, AR

#25173 Jun 3, 2013
What he meant was that you are morons.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arkansas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 3 hr Thinking 2,836
Does Mike Huckabee want to president or Beyonce... 18 hr kuda 27
Panel dismisses ethics complaint against Arkans... Sat Camilo Cienfuegos 1
Beyonce's Group Mate Confronts Mike Huckabee on... Sat TheAfroHedgehog 1
Stewart spars with Mike Huckabee over Beyonc &c... Thu WAY WAY WRONG 25
Former Arkansas Legislator Hudson Hallum Senten... (Jul '13) Jan 22 Guestt 56
Jeb Bush talks education for Arkansas GOP hopeful Jan 21 Swedenforever 29
More from around the web