Jump to content

Impeach 46!


Slotback Right

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, concha said:

From 2010 to the start of 2014 when the LFPR was plummeting, the unemployment rate dropped 3.2%.

concha frequently botches plummeting and stabilizing.

On 1/30/2018 at 9:58 PM, concha said:

It basically stabilized in late 2013.  After dropping rapidly while the participation rate dropped similarly, since late 2013 it took 3 years for the employment rate to drop another 2 points and less than 1 point in the last 2 years of the previous administration. It's dropped 7 tenths in less than a year under Trump at already full/natural unemployment levels.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, concha said:

While the LFPR is not dropping (slight increases in fact), Trump reduces unemployment to levels not seen since the late 1960s.

The LFPR didn't drop after the end of 2013 either and you claimed that the reduction in unemployment was meaningless and had nothing to do with Obama.

The LFPR was the exact same as it was when Obama left and you were proclaiming a "booming" economy where "everybody was prospering."

I don't have to answer for such clownish behavior because I don't act this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, concha said:

And on Feb 21st, the Forbes headline is that Trump's GDP growth was higher.

Same author.

I know.

This was my very next post after the one I screenshotted above.

On 3/24/2020 at 11:25 AM, The Guru said:

And using just straight average GDP growth:

2020-03-24_11-23-39.png.3790d7f6ea0861415eff1eb2b85cce90.png

So...

2.3% = bad President, like Hoover

2.5% = everybody prospering

And I wonder what this will look like after the first quarter of 2020? Hmmm.

concha's a clown. Always has been.

It only cost a trillion dollars and your dignity.

But what's a little dignity when you have none?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

The LFPR didn't drop after the end of 2013 either and you claimed that the reduction in unemployment was meaningless and had nothing to do with Obama.

The LFPR was the exact same as it was when Obama left and you were proclaiming a "booming" economy where "everybody was prospering."

I don't have to answer for such clownish behavior because I don't act this way.

 

No, you lie and duck and dodge.

I don't lay the entire reduction in unemployment under Obama at the feet of LFPR.  But even frigging CNN pointed it out, you buffoon.

 

You just hate the following simple True or False. It set you off.

In the last year of Obama's presidency, unemployment dropped 0.1% (4.9% to 4.8%)?  TRUE

In the first year under Trump took over, unemployment started to drop again and ended dropping 7x as much as under the last year of Obama (4.8% to 4.1%)?  TRUE

 

You've been challenged with simple fucking math regarding the LFPR and you've failed. You've run like a bitch.

Even CNN and the Chicago Tribune know I'm right.

🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, concha said:

I don't lay the entire reduction in unemployment under Obama at the feet of LFPR. 

👇

On 1/30/2018 at 9:42 PM, concha said:

As regards the unemployment rate, I pointed out that reductions under Obama tended to follow the reduction in the labor force participation rate.

And given that you never verbalized any *other* reasons for the reduction I think we were safe to assume that you didn't think there were any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, concha said:

You just hate the following simple True or False. It set you off.

In the last year of Obama's presidency, unemployment dropped 0.1% (4.9% to 4.8%)?  TRUE

In the first year under Trump took over, unemployment started to drop again and ended dropping 7x as much as under the last year of Obama (4.8% to 4.1%)?  TRUE

While the LFPR remained unchanged TRUE

You're clearly not following the thread.

From claiming that there's nothing wonderful about low unemployment to now claiming low unemployment is great despite no change to the LFPR (which was the topic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2020 at 12:31 PM, concha said:

2) Trump's growth has not quite met expectations, though it has been better than under Obama and certainly been stronger than most if not all other major industrialized nations. 

concha got sold a bill of goods and is now left to defend the unmitigated disaster that was Trump.

🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, World Citizen said:

Atticus > Cryin Concha

And it's not even close.  Atticus, I know it is fun to destroy him but IMO, it is a waste of time due to his dishonesty and cult member status.  There will never be any admission of any wrong done by Trump and considering EVERYTHING he has said and done it is truly astounding. 

 

 

Another of my bitches to the rescue of another.

Hilarious.

🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

Apparently, concha has run out of dates, numbers and figures to lie about.

Now he's rehashing old debates that he long ago lost.

He was celebrating an economic boom while the LFPR hadn't budged.

This is the good thing about toadies: they don't have any standards and so they will easily expose themselves for all to see.

 

Andy proving stupid is apparently NOT painful.

Nobody has claimed the LFPR determines a boom or not.

No one.

I related - absolutely correctly - that the drop in the LFPR directly affected the drop in the unemployment rate under Obama. 

It is the math that Andy cannot disprove and why he's running like a bitch.

 

Andy is getting beaten like a rented hooker mule so he does one of his usual "I'll make some shit up and hope stupid people believe it" posts.

His attached post is a prime example. Pure, dishonest fabrication.

Andy = 💩

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

concha was talking about the prospering economy back in 2018.

When the LFPR was exactly the same as it was when Obama left office.

 

Indeed.

It was, more or less. Actually, it was little higher in 2018, making reductions in unemployment more difficult. But let's throw Andy a bone an get to the point:

 

Trump was lowering unemployment WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A DECLINING LFPR (like Obama had).

 

Andy is apparently too stupid and too dishonest to admit this.

The hilarity that he is actually trying to use this to HELP his cause is PURE COMEDY GOLD. 🤣

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

My favorite things about this are:

(1) Every trend that was occurring at the end of Obama's term had merely continued and (2) the "leftist" movement has won every election since this post.

 

My favorite thing about Andy's post is that he starts off with a lie (unemployment improved, GDP growth improved, the stock market improved from when Obama handed over). They did not "continue" where Obama left them.

Proven.

 

Why is Andy such a compulsive liar?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/03/28/president_obamas_overrated_unemployment_story_102083.html

 

This article has some numbers and math and shit like that to help Andy understand.

Which he won't.

Because he's stupid and dishonest.

President Obama's Overrated Unemployment Story

By J.T. Young
March 28, 2016

 

... 

Obama's economic highlight, employment, results not from growth, but a profound shrinking. This administration cites no economic statistic as it does employment. However employment's most popular measuring sticks - the number of employed and the unemployment rate - show Obama's story to be far less than billed. Rather than the crown jewel of his economy, employment further underscores its weakness.

In this year's State of the Union speech Obama stated: "Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. We're in the middle of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history. More than 14 million new jobs, the strongest two years of job growth since the '90s, an unemployment rate cut in half."

Obama parsed his words carefully here, as he had to, in order to make his case. Saying America "right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world" is less than it sounds - considering today's global economic slowdown. But his real focus was accentuating his employment story.

However Obama did not mention that his focal economic achievement - higher employment and a low unemployment rate - must be viewed in isolation to appear impressive. Absent that, Obama's employment story unravels - and with it, his economic record.

The key to understanding this is a rather obscure statistic: The US labor force participation rate.

From the mid-1960s, Americans' participation in the labor force increased from just below 59% to plateauing just above 67% from the late 1990s through the early 2000s. Over the next decade, it dipped, hovering around 66%.

In 2008's last two months, it fell below 66%, reaching 65.7% when Obama took in 2009. It has since declined sharply, hitting 62.4% last September. Even having rebounded to 62.9% in February, dismissing the last seven years, this is its lowest point since 1978.

The large effect resulting from participation's drop is seen by comparing employment from the beginning of Obama's administration to today.

When Obama took office, America's potential labor force (the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Civilian Noninstitutionalized population) measured 234.7 million. February 2016's employment report recorded it at 252.6 million - a 7.6% increase. Employment over this period rose from 142.1 million to 151.1 million. Although a net 9 million employment increase, its 6.3% increase is less than the growth in the potential labor force.

The effect on the unemployment rate is far greater. If America still had the 65.5% labor force participation rate that existed when Obama took office, today's official 4.9% rate would instead be an enormous 8.7%. Conversely, if today's low 62.9% participation rate had prevailed when Obama took office, January 2009's 7.6% unemployment rate would have been just half that - an incredibly low 3.8%.

...Two significant facts emerge from putting Obama's seven years into context. First, although an additional nine million employed sounds impressive, it has not kept pace with the growth of America's potential labor force. Second and more dramatically, today's seemingly low unemployment rate is the product of today's low labor force participation rate - without its huge fall, today's unemployment rate would actually be far larger than when Obama took office!

...Examining Obama's employment and unemployment record, two basic conclusions emerge: Either employment failed to match the potential labor force's growth because there have been insufficient jobs; or Americans deem the available jobs not worth entering the workforce for. Either conclusion indicts Obama's real employment record.

 

 

 

Employment growth under Obama did not keep pace with the growth in the potential labor force. 

The drop in the LFPR accounted for a nearly 4% drop in the unemployment rate (8.7% less 4.9%).

Translation:

Concha - Right

Andy = Wrong... and a dishonest turd   💩

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

While the LFPR remained unchanged TRUE

You're clearly not following the thread.

From claiming that there's nothing wonderful about low unemployment to now claiming low unemployment is great despite no change to the LFPR (which was the topic).

 

More dishonest Andy distortions.

 

Obama unemployment rates, as explained ad nauseum, were materially dependent on people stopping looking for work. Hence the drop in LFPR. This is the argument Andy has futilely and dishonestly railed against for years.

Trump unemployment reductions did not depend on people continually leaving the workforce over a long period of time. Trump unemployment rates declined because people got jobs.

In fact, under Trump we actually saw an economy where there were MORE JOBS AVAILABLE THAN PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THEM.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/05/news/economy/job-openings-unemployed-workers/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/there-are-more-jobs-than-people-out-of-work.html

 

I'm sure that drives you insane, Andy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atticus Finch said:

Oh no.

8 straight posts from concha.

I guess I have to whine about it now.

Or I'll  just note how desperate and maniacal concha is to relitigate arguments that have already been made and in which he has already been exposed. 

HIs hero is dead last in economic growth, job creation, etc.

The end.

 

You could.

Though most are direct replies to YOUR posts 🤡, unlike your 8 to much-less-than-8 spasm yesterday.

 

Your beating has been comprehensive.

The hilarious part is that in all your bleating about LFPR, you have literally not been able to demonstrate how LFPR decline did not aid in Obama's unemployment numbers. Not once. 🤣

 

And why is this?

Math. Reality. Truth.

So you provide no evidence whatsoever to back your story. Because you CAN'T.

What do you do instead?

You lie and run like the mangina that you are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...