Piezoe's Queen opens her mouth - proves she deserves Fed Chair

[Tsing Tao]

The drop in employment had nothing to do with Obama but rather with the Bush environment. The "partisan crap" applies to both sides. To ignore that means a perpetuation of the same mistakes.

Agreed, the drop in employment was Bush. The continued low employment problem is Obama's. But I still don't see the commentary where Jem was referring to the bailout.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Oh yeah. The 1%. They ARE important though. They control 40% of the wealth, and our government. What would a plutocracy be without them?

Again, dumb and dumber ignore that their own party is just as guilty and in bed with Wall Street.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The two articles were aimed at those who think that retirement was not a factor.

From the Fed:

The number of disabled persons has been steadily rising; retirement had not played much of a role until around 2010, at which point it started to make a large impact on the overall participation rate. In particular, the decline in the participation rate in the past one-and-a-half years (when the unemployment rate declined faster than expected) is mostly due to retirement.

-------------

Now if you're referring to stimulus, this is a much bigger topic that would require some prior research into balance sheet recessions and the aftermaths of financial panics. I'm going to sit this one out.

I didn't say retirement wasn't a factor in the drop of employment. What I said was "the Labor Force Participation Rate does not include retirees" like Ricter said it did.

You need to pay closer attention.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Perhaps. But Republicans -- and now TPs -- tend to overlook the question of when and by whom the debt was incurred in the first place ("Do any of you idiots comprehend how all these freebies are paid for? In addition to the ever escalating debt we have? Do any of you have any idea as to how we'll pay for all our debt once debt payments exceed revenues for the US?"). As you point out in another context relating to two wars and the rise in disability, those looking for help are not the sole cause or even a primary cause of our indebtedness. Nor was the 700B bailout done for the sake of aiding the jobless. If we had instead injected those funds into the economy, let the bondholders and shareholders hold the bag for the mess that Wall Street and the banks got themselves into, even without following the Swedish Model, and exited the Middle East, what would our condition now be?

Don't you think you're being a bit too general here? Wait, of course you don't. You might be surprised to know that a good percentage of Tea Partiers think Bush sucked and was not a conservative. Even Scat, who is arguably the most angry person here has said before that Bush was a horrible President.

 

[Arnie]

Wow, what happened in 2008/2009 to cause such a decline in employment!?

Obama won.

 

[Scataphagos]

Don't you think you're being a bit too general here? Wait, of course you don't. You might be surprised to know that a good percentage of Tea Partiers think Bush sucked and was not a conservative. Even Scat, who is arguably the most angry person here has said before that Bush was a horrible President.

Maybe a tie with LEAPup... both of us war vets.

I'm all for adherence to the US Constitution and against an imperial presidency. That's what REAL American patriotism is all about. Whichever political faction/party embraces those concepts best gets my support... right now, that'd be Tea Party and Libertarians.

Who embraces those principles the least? (1) DemoCraps... closely followed by (2) Republicans. Neither is worth 2 dead flies! But when it comes to the vote, and knowing no 3rd Party has any practical chance, I'll cast for Republicans... just so my vote counts against the Leftist/DemoCraps/Communists!

 

[dbphoenix]

Agreed, the drop in employment was Bush. The continued low employment problem is Obama's.

And what jobs programs did the Republicans sponsor and push through from 2008 onward?

 

[DHOHHI]

I think this is what you meant to say.

Plenty of unfortunate people will now get subsidized health premiums while lucky people subsidize them.

No, a small percentage of the people now getting health care deserve it due to pre-existing conditions hey had no control over.

The majority have CHOSEN to develop pre-existing conditions due to many factors including eating crap food, not exercising, sitting on their butts all day playing video games, posting on Facebook, watching reality TV shows (like America's Biggest Loser), drinking excessively, using drugs, smoking). And the supposed 'lucky' ones, like me and others, we exercise daily, eat healthy and do everything we can to remain healthy. And the reason I do that is because I pay 100% of my health expenses and have for over 18 years. So NO .... I'm not lucky that I get to help support many slobs. Years ago we didn't have 2/3 of our country overweight or obese but now we are approaching 70%.

Rather than penalize the slobs it's the healthy who are penalized financially.

 

[Scataphagos]

"... NO .... I'm not lucky that I get to help support many slobs... Rather than penalize the slobs it's the healthy who are penalized financially.

That's Socialism for you. And if you're a taker/parasite/DemoCrap/Communist, you see "no problemo" with any of that, of course.

 

[Tsing Tao]

And what jobs programs did the Republicans sponsor and push through from 2008 onward?

LOL! You're honestly not going to drag out that "shovel ready" crap, are you? Does that mean I have to go out there and pull all those hilarious examples (and there are quite a few) of massively wasteful spending that made a mockery of the process? Are we going to talk about "jobs saved or created"?