DiscussMormonism.com

Seems just like yesterday that the Right Wing propaganda machine was babbling on and on about record low LFPR and the bogus unemployment numbers. I just think it is funny because the rate was dropping throughout Obama's tenure and ended at 63.0. It was 65% when he took office and with every tenth of a point drop each month the idiots on the RIght went apeshit complaining about how this proves a government conspiracy to lie about the real unemployment rate.

The LFPR still dropping, now to 62.7, and the same loud mouths haven't uttered a single complaint since Trump took office.

Nov. 12, 2010

"So bleak is the actual labor landscape that more than 25 percent of adult men are neither working nor looking for work, representing the highest recorded rate in post-war years. Overall, the labor force participation rate dipped to 64.5 percent, falling by 0.2 points." - The Patriot Post

Feb 4, 2011
"At 64.2%, the labor force participation rate (as a percentage of the total civilian noninstitutional population) is now at a fresh 26 year low, the lowest since March 1984, and is the only reason why the unemployment rate dropped to 9% (labor force declined from 153,690 to 153,186)." - American Thinker

June 16, 2012
"The civilian labor force participation rate declined in April to 63.6 percent. The rate has precipitously and steadily dropped since Obama took office with little abatement." - Conservative Daily News

Oct 8, 2012
"If you were to factor in the people who want to work part-time, the people who've dropped out of the work force -- that's the labor participation rate -- to what the real unemployment rate would be, it would be 14.7 percent." - Fox Business reporter Adam Shapiro

Oct 11, 2012
"In August, the labor force participation rate for men was the lowest on record, which goes all the way back to 1948. The overall labor force participation rate had declined all the way back to September, 1981, before the Reagan recovery." - Peter Ferrara, Forbes

April 5, 2013
"People not in the labor force grew by 663,000, and now 90 million. That's the labor force participation rate. This is 1979 levels." - Rush Limbaugh

Jan 9, 2014
“This Obama economy is holding people back. The workforce participation rate is the lowest that it's been in 40 years.” –Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.)

Jan 26, 2014
"We’ve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978." — Ted Cruz

Nov 4, 2014
"We have the lowest labor-force participation rate since 1978. There’s all sorts of ways the government plays with statistics. For example, have you noticed late the unemployment rate has gone down, what is it, 5.9% or whatever it happens to be. You would think, ‘Oh, this is a good thing. My government is telling me the unemployment rate is down.’ The government doesn’t count people that are chronically, long-term unemployed. So the number is smoke and mirrors. The number is a lie.” - Sean Hannity, FOX News

Kevin Graham wrote:The LFPR still dropping, now to 62.7, and the same loud mouths haven't uttered a single complaint with Trump took office.

It looks like they did talk about it when there was a .1% increase in 2017 , but spun it to refer to the absolute number instead of the percentage...

Number of Americans in labor force hits record high

And I don't know how Fox Business is viewed, but one commentator did have this to say earlier this year:

Instead of agonizing over monthly variations, we should focus more on the number of Americans who are already working or who are looking for jobs, referred to as the labor participation rate. And it’s here where the problem lies. March’s participation rate came in at 62.9%, but that level is the worst since before the recession of 2009.

That's hardly sweeping it under the rug.

Every month all the business channels go over the monthly jobs numbers, but I'm talking about the full throttle hissy fits that consumed entire segments of radio shows and FOX news programs during Obama. And this started when the LFPR was significantly better than it is right now.

cinepro wrote:

Kevin Graham wrote:The LFPR still dropping, now to 62.7, and the same loud mouths haven't uttered a single complaint with Trump took office.

It looks like they did talk about it when there was a .1% increase in 2017 , but spun it to refer to the absolute number instead of the percentage...

Number of Americans in labor force hits record high

And I don't know how Fox Business is viewed, but one commentator did have this to say earlier this year:

Instead of agonizing over monthly variations, we should focus more on the number of Americans who are already working or who are looking for jobs, referred to as the labor participation rate. And it’s here where the problem lies. March’s participation rate came in at 62.9%, but that level is the worst since before the recession of 2009.

That's hardly sweeping it under the rug.

Cinepro, there was constant coverage in the right-wing media of the labor force participation rate when Obama was president and it was brought up routinely to undercut consistently improving employment numbers. Coverage of this has slowed to a trickle from those same sources and those same sources now routinely talk up unemployment measures they used to undercut. Pointing out a single instance, especially on a business channel, where this is not the case does not debunk this point. It's about a shift in standards because the goal is to propagandize rather than inform.

I get the sense that you might need a "both sides" example to see the point. Remember how the anti-war movement was huge when George W. Bush was president, but vanished virtually overnight when Obama became president even though wars they were protesting continued on? If we were to comment on the seeming partisan hypocrisy of this, pointing out embers of the still existent anti-war movement wouldn't contradict the point because the point is more about the unprincipled change in behavior in aggregate.

EAllusion wrote:Remember how the anti-war movement was huge when George W. Bush was president, but vanished virtually overnight when Obama became president even though wars they were protesting continued on? If we were to comment on the seeming partisan hypocrisy of this, pointing out embers of the still existent anti-war movement wouldn't contradict the point because the point is more about the unprincipled change in behavior in aggregate.

Bush's buddies had been pushing for an Iraq invasion for years through the Project for the New American Century. Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Carlucci...the Ds never had such an initiative. Obama in his fumbling way was trying to draw the wars down. It didn't work. He inherited a mess and had little support from Congress towards a resolution.

Maksutov wrote:

EAllusion wrote:Remember how the anti-war movement was huge when George W. Bush was president, but vanished virtually overnight when Obama became president even though wars they were protesting continued on? If we were to comment on the seeming partisan hypocrisy of this, pointing out embers of the still existent anti-war movement wouldn't contradict the point because the point is more about the unprincipled change in behavior in aggregate.

Bush's buddies had been pushing for an Iraq invasion for years through the Project for the New American Century. Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Carlucci...the Ds never had such an initiative. Obama in his fumbling way was trying to draw the wars down. It didn't work. He inherited a mess and had little support from Congress towards a resolution.

Obama actually fought against entirely drawing down the Iraq war, but lost that battle. He escalated the war in Afghanistan as promised and it never ended during his two terms. He also initiated a military action in Libya that was Constitutionally dubious and carried on multiple drone wars in several other nations. I agree that the reason that the anti-war movement faded is the belief among liberals running it that things were fine now that Obama was president, but this was willful ignorance at best and hypocritial bandwagoning at worst.

EAllusion wrote:

Maksutov wrote:
Bush's buddies had been pushing for an Iraq invasion for years through the Project for the New American Century. Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Carlucci...the Ds never had such an initiative. Obama in his fumbling way was trying to draw the wars down. It didn't work. He inherited a mess and had little support from Congress towards a resolution.

Obama actually fought against entirely drawing down the Iraq war, but lost that battle. He escalated the war in Afghanistan as promised and it never ended during his two terms. He also initiated a military action in Libya that was Constitutionally dubious and carried on multiple drone wars in several other nations. I agree that the reason that the anti-war movement faded is the belief among liberals running it that things were fine now that Obama was president, but this was willful ignorance at best and hypocritial bandwagoning at worst.

He was a failed president but not a maniacal juggernaut like we currently have.

The deep Republican darkness runs through plots like Iran-Contra, Iraq and up to today. Trump didn't invent it but he's happy to help it along. He's in it for the thrills.

EAllusion wrote:Obama actually fought against entirely drawing down the Iraq war, but lost that battle. He escalated the war in Afghanistan as promised and it never ended during his two terms. He also initiated a military action in Libya that was Constitutionally dubious and carried on multiple drone wars in several other nations. I agree that the reason that the anti-war movement faded is the belief among liberals running it that things were fine now that Obama was president, but this was willful ignorance at best and hypocritial bandwagoning at worst.

I think that is the perception some may have had but I didn't notice any difference in media focus when Obama became President and at that time I was still a Republican. We were still at war when Obama got elected and he seemed intent on proving the doubters wrong who insisted he didn't have what it took to stand up to terrorism and see it through. Any sign of weakness was interpreted as proof that he was a closet Muslim who hated America. It was a key talking point against him in the debates and he assured the American people he'd be tougher on Al Qaeda and he obviously did a much better job of that then Bush.

I don't think if Obama were President today he'd be wanting to go to war. He inherited a war and tried to manage it to keep American casualties to a minimum. Hence the drones. I don't find it hypocritical on my part because I never criticized Bush for wanting to kill terrorists in Afghanistan, I criticized him for lying about the reason for going to war.

Kevin Graham wrote:

EAllusion wrote:Obama actually fought against entirely drawing down the Iraq war, but lost that battle. He escalated the war in Afghanistan as promised and it never ended during his two terms. He also initiated a military action in Libya that was Constitutionally dubious and carried on multiple drone wars in several other nations. I agree that the reason that the anti-war movement faded is the belief among liberals running it that things were fine now that Obama was president, but this was willful ignorance at best and hypocritial bandwagoning at worst.

I think that is the perception some may have had but I didn't notice any difference in media focus when Obama became President and at that time I was still a Republican. We were still at war when Obama got elected and he seemed intent on proving the doubters wrong who insisted he didn't have what it took to stand up to terrorism and see it through. Any sign of weakness was interpreted as proof that he was a closet Muslim who hated America. It was a key talking point against him in the debates and he assured the American people he'd be tougher on Al Qaeda and he obviously did a much better job of that then Bush.

I don't think if Obama were President today he'd be wanting to go to war. He inherited a war and tried to manage it to keep American casualties to a minimum. Hence the drones. I don't find it hypocritical on my part because I never criticized Bush for wanting to kill terrorists in Afghanistan, I criticized him for lying about the reason for going to war.

I'm referring to the anti-war protest movement that wasn't a technical protest against how Bush got the US into the Iraq war. Sure, that rankled anyone in the anti-war movement, but they were protesting US wars that continued or in some cases expanded under Obama. The energy for the movement just dissolved when Obama became president even though what they were protesting continued. Going to a protest against the administration just got a lot less appealing.

I knew someone who used to go to anti-war protests like it was her job. I swear they stopped on a dime when Obama was elected. And what she was upset about definitely was US involvement in military actions that Obama continued.

EAllusion wrote:I'm referring to the anti-war protest movement that wasn't a technical protest against how Bush got the US into the Iraq war. Sure, that rankled anyone in the anti-war movement, but they were protesting US wars that continued or in some cases expanded under Obama. The energy for the movement just dissolved when Obama became president even though what they were protesting continued. Going to a protest against the administration just got a lot less appealing.

I knew someone who used to go to anti-war protests like it was her job. I swear they stopped on a dime when Obama was elected. And what she was upset about definitely was US involvement in military actions that Obama continued.

I wouldn't know anything about that as I was living in Brazil for almost all of the Bush presidency.