Benghazi "Scandal"

[Darth Crater]

Crater I think you are missing the point whenever Obama is asked about his 2nd term agenda, the answers he gives are not solutions to our current economic situation. Hiring teachers in a literal sense creates jobs, my pint was improving education should be much lees of a priority than fixing the economy.

Hobo, in my opinion we are not recovering, my proof average income has been down by almost $3,000(inflation adjusted). My proof:

You still haven't explained Romney's plan. If he actually had any sort of plan, this would not be particularly difficult for you. Instead you're deflecting the question yet again. "Fixing the economy" is a nice sound bite, but doesn't contain details.

Also, that graph you cited for Hobo leaves out 2011 data. Given that it appears in raw form directly below, and indicates a rise back to 2008-2009 levels, this seems deliberately manipulative.

EDIT: the second graph is interesting. Does it indicate the total percentage of the US population employed? If so, fluctuations are probably primarily due to Baby Boomers entering and leaving the workforce. The increase and decrease seem to map well to this, more than to economic fluctuations (note that the 10% unemployment in the 1982-84 era doesn't map to a similar sharp decline).

[kjeopardy]

Crater I think you are missing the point whenever Obama is asked about his 2nd term agenda, the answers he gives are not solutions to our current economic situation. Hiring teachers in a literal sense creates jobs, my pint was improving education should be much lees of a priority than fixing the economy.

Hobo, in my opinion we are not recovering, my proof average income has been down by almost $3,000(inflation adjusted). My proof:

You still haven't explained Romney's plan. If he actually had any sort of plan, this would not be particularly difficult for you. Instead you're deflecting the question yet again. "Fixing the economy" is a nice sound bite, but doesn't contain details.

Also, that graph you cited for Hobo leaves out 2011 data. Given that it appears in raw form directly below, and indicates a rise back to 2008-2009 levels, this seems deliberately manipulative.

EDIT: the second graph is interesting. Does it indicate the total percentage of the US population employed? If so, fluctuations are probably primarily due to Baby Boomers entering and leaving the workforce. The increase and decrease seem to map well to this, more than to economic fluctuations (note that the 10% unemployment in the 1982-84 era doesn't map to a similar sharp decline).

Crater the graph does include up to 2011. The unemployment number is quite deceptive since in only includes those actually actively looking for work, it does not include those who have given up or those working part time.

Another thing is that many of the new jobs we have created are low-wage jobs, not enough to support a family. So basically we replaced many good jobs with a lot of bad ones.

Best,
kjep

[Duel of Fates]

Rodney 2012

[Darth Crater]

Crater the graph does include up to 2011. The unemployment number is quite deceptive since in only includes those actually actively looking for work, it does not include those who have given up or those working part time.

Another thing is that many of the new jobs we have created are low-wage jobs, not enough to support a family. So basically we replaced many good jobs with a lot of bad ones.

Best,
kjep

You're right about the first graph; I was looking at the pre-adjustment data.

The "unemployment number" is completely irrelevant to your second graph, though. As far as I can tell, it shows the percentage of the population actively working (so, including children and retirees in the total). In fact, it doesn't distinguish between "looking for work" and "given up" at all. Thus, the fluctuation you're looking at is caused by the retiring of the Baby Boomers, which began en masse at the time of that decline.

[kjeopardy]

Crater the graph does include up to 2011. The unemployment number is quite deceptive since in only includes those actually actively looking for work, it does not include those who have given up or those working part time.

Another thing is that many of the new jobs we have created are low-wage jobs, not enough to support a family. So basically we replaced many good jobs with a lot of bad ones.

Best,
kjep

You're right about the first graph; I was looking at the pre-adjustment data.

The "unemployment number" is completely irrelevant to your second graph, though. As far as I can tell, it shows the percentage of the population actively working (so, including children and retirees in the total). In fact, it doesn't distinguish between "looking for work" and "given up" at all. Thus, the fluctuation you're looking at is caused by the retiring of the Baby Boomers, which began en masse at the time of that decline.

It's not just the baby-boomers retiring, it's the fact that college graduates are struggling to find jobs that don't exist.

My chart:


This evident that Obama's policies have failed and that we need new leadership, that can get something done.

All the best,
kjeopardy

[Hobo]

Well, I was going to post a response to pi's last couple of posts, but my interest has kind of faded. There's not much else I can take from this, other than a repetitive cycle of the same points again and again. Also, I had a whole load of nothing to do over the weekend, so that explains my heightened amount of activity here. Now that my agenda has kicked up, I have resumed spending all of my free time studying.

If there's anything else to say, besides that all your college-dropout graph shows is a spike in 2009 ish, and declines from that point, is that I doubt me posting here has convinced anyone who's voting for Romney switch to Obama. Trying to persuade people to vote for someone else works better in real life in my experience.

[kjeopardy]

Well, I was going to post a response to pi's last couple of posts, but my interest has kind of faded. There's not much else I can take from this, other than a repetitive cycle of the same points again and again. Also, I had a whole load of nothing to do over the weekend, so that explains my heightened amount of activity here. Now that my agenda has kicked up, I have resumed spending all of my free time studying.

If there's anything else to say, besides that all your college-dropout graph shows is a spike in 2009 ish, and declines from that point, is that I doubt me posting here has convinced anyone who's voting for Romney switch to Obama. Trying to persuade people to vote for someone else works better in real life in my experience.

This is true. I don't really think that anyone's views have been changed, but hearing everything has been interesting, so thanks for that people.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

[Nik]

:drse:

[Dad]

It's not just the baby-boomers retiring, it's the fact that college graduates are struggling to find jobs that don't exist.

Remember, it's people exactly like Romney that made those jobs cease to exist. He saved several corporations, by sending the job overseas for slave wages, wonderful. I don't understand why no one has mentioned who or which corporations donates the most to BOTH sides of this "super-pac" nonsense.

Corporations are not people. They are comprised of people. We The People are what makes this country work. As long as we get screwed, this country will cease to function.

Before I hear one word of crap, I hate Obama equally. The two party system is broken.

Look into any major, wide sweeping law that has been passed in the last 30 years. I'm serious, look it up. Get a thesaurus. It will curdle your guts. Every single one has a clause, inserted under duress, to hurt the middle class. Shove your "party lines".

Open your eyes people, regardless of the outcome of this election, We The People, are [m'kay].

Hey Haas, I'm back [female dog].