created by: Rick | Jun 8, 2010

Arkansas

5,709 votes

Did you vote today?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)

Comments (Page 1,168)

Showing posts 23,341 - 23,360 of27,902
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25162
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25163
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Between 1970 and 2010, the
enrollment rate for adults ages 20–24 increased from 22
to 39 percent, and the rate for adults ages 25–29 increased
from 8 to 15 percent. The enrollment rate for adults ages
30–34 increased from 4 percent in 1970 to 8 percent in
2010. Between 2000 and 2010, the enrollment rate for
adults ages 20–24 increased from 32 to 39 percent; for
adults ages 25–29, it increased from 11 to 15 percent; and
for adults ages 30–34, it increased from 7 to 8 percent.
Tomagotchi

Dexter, MO

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

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Camden, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25173
Jun 3, 2013
 
What he meant was that you are morons.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25174
Jun 3, 2013
 
Hey gang, let's have some fun.
Why don't we Compare President Obamas first term unemployment numbers with the Great Ronald Reagans first term.
Well (Ronald Reagan always said,“Well”), By the time Reagan was running for re-election in October 1984, the unemployment rate was back down to 7.4%, basically the same level that prevailed when he had taken office, and well off the 10.8% peak of two years before. And the participation rate was up to 64.4%.
..........
When Obama first took office in January 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. Today the unemployment rate is once again at 7.8 percent.
The unemployment rate rose as high as 10 percent during Obama’s first term before falling back down to 7.8 percent last November.
The Truth

Stuttgart, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25175
Jun 3, 2013
 
Moron, why are you talking to yourself in this idiotic thread?
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25176
Jun 3, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
It all depends on how many drop out on the front end as workers are being added on the back end.
Zunba

Jonesboro, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25177
Jun 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

When will you idiots figure out there is not an election today ? Can you read it says did you vote today .

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25178
Jun 3, 2013
 
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
It all depends on how many drop out on the front end as workers are being added on the back end.
Sorry but I am not buying the Republican talking point labor participation is keeping unemployment numbers low.

If that is the case, then it keep them low for President Reagan as well, his first 18 months in office, then another recession and hello 10.8% unemployment.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25179
Jun 3, 2013
 
Zunba wrote:
When will you idiots figure out there is not an election today ? Can you read it says did you vote today .
Tell you what, just to be fair to everyone who uses Topix you should check ALL the other threads on Topix and make sure they are talking about whatever it is they are suppose to be talking about. JUST TO BE FAIR..........

By the time you get that done maybe I can convince Topix to let REDD change the name of his thread, if he wants to.

How's that?

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25180
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"
"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."
Hmmmm. If that's the case (that chances are looking pretty slim that you won't go over to his side) then it seems the chances are pretty good that you WILL go over to his side!
Just sayin'.
Democrat

Cusseta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25182
Jun 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Look at the last 8 yrs under bush.
WARRIOR

Washington, DC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25184
Jun 4, 2013
 
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I meant 12 million unemployed.
I see you still have to clarify! LOL!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 23,341 - 23,360 of27,902
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••