Obamacare cost jobs?
Comments
-
Recovery: a return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.2001400ex said:
I have an 8th grade education, remember? So bear with me when sometimes I don't read everything. But I'm smart enough to know that blaming job losses prior to Obama being elected on Obama and calling it Obama's war on women is FS.HoustonHusky said:
Was it hard to read the first three or four times, or did you just not understand it until I had to point it out to you?2001400ex said:
Why would you use December 2007? That's the month the recession started. Let's use a more reasonable time. Try January 2009. It went from 57,911 to 59,258.HoustonHusky said:I should expect a moron like you not to be able to understand how to use the govt website.
I'll give you instructions:
1) Click here: bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm
2) Under "Women", click the box for "Foreign born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
3) Under "Women", click the box for "Native born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
4) Click the button "Retrieve Data"
Article claim: "Jobs shock: 100% of female employment gains taken by foreigners since 2007"
Foreign Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 9041, July 2015 10028
Native Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 59332, July 2015 59258
Whooo..hoo...part time is down, what 5%/yearly from 2013 so now its only up 170% from pre-recession levels? But, 6 YEARS AFTER the end of the recession it can't be due to the policies put in place by Obama.
Moron.
Fuck you are stupid. But keep believing your news source that wasn't to use stats from before the recession. Which make zero sense.
And why would anyone use the last month before the recession to compare how 6 YEARS of "recovery" has been for American-born females. I wonder what the definition of RECOVERY means...
God you are a dull one...I see why OZONE sticks up for you. Makes his freeway speed-limit IQ seem like Mensa in comparison. Two peas in a pod...
Yes read up, that's what you did.
I'm not blaming the losses. I'm blaming the lack of recovery after 6 years. Try and keep up next time.
-
Then you should compare to 2000. We haven't had a good economy since then.HoustonHusky said:
Recovery: a return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.2001400ex said:
I have an 8th grade education, remember? So bear with me when sometimes I don't read everything. But I'm smart enough to know that blaming job losses prior to Obama being elected on Obama and calling it Obama's war on women is FS.HoustonHusky said:
Was it hard to read the first three or four times, or did you just not understand it until I had to point it out to you?2001400ex said:
Why would you use December 2007? That's the month the recession started. Let's use a more reasonable time. Try January 2009. It went from 57,911 to 59,258.HoustonHusky said:I should expect a moron like you not to be able to understand how to use the govt website.
I'll give you instructions:
1) Click here: bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm
2) Under "Women", click the box for "Foreign born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
3) Under "Women", click the box for "Native born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
4) Click the button "Retrieve Data"
Article claim: "Jobs shock: 100% of female employment gains taken by foreigners since 2007"
Foreign Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 9041, July 2015 10028
Native Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 59332, July 2015 59258
Whooo..hoo...part time is down, what 5%/yearly from 2013 so now its only up 170% from pre-recession levels? But, 6 YEARS AFTER the end of the recession it can't be due to the policies put in place by Obama.
Moron.
Fuck you are stupid. But keep believing your news source that wasn't to use stats from before the recession. Which make zero sense.
And why would anyone use the last month before the recession to compare how 6 YEARS of "recovery" has been for American-born females. I wonder what the definition of RECOVERY means...
God you are a dull one...I see why OZONE sticks up for you. Makes his freeway speed-limit IQ seem like Mensa in comparison. Two peas in a pod...
Yes read up, that's what you did.
I'm not blaming the losses. I'm blaming the lack of recovery after 6 years. Try and keep up next time.
Regardless, you stated it was Obama's war on women. Clearly you are fucktarded. -
That's a broad stroke....the "but...but...Bush" response.2001400ex said:
Then you should compare to 2000. We haven't had a good economy since then.HoustonHusky said:
Recovery: a return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.2001400ex said:
I have an 8th grade education, remember? So bear with me when sometimes I don't read everything. But I'm smart enough to know that blaming job losses prior to Obama being elected on Obama and calling it Obama's war on women is FS.HoustonHusky said:
Was it hard to read the first three or four times, or did you just not understand it until I had to point it out to you?2001400ex said:
Why would you use December 2007? That's the month the recession started. Let's use a more reasonable time. Try January 2009. It went from 57,911 to 59,258.HoustonHusky said:I should expect a moron like you not to be able to understand how to use the govt website.
I'll give you instructions:
1) Click here: bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm
2) Under "Women", click the box for "Foreign born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
3) Under "Women", click the box for "Native born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
4) Click the button "Retrieve Data"
Article claim: "Jobs shock: 100% of female employment gains taken by foreigners since 2007"
Foreign Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 9041, July 2015 10028
Native Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 59332, July 2015 59258
Whooo..hoo...part time is down, what 5%/yearly from 2013 so now its only up 170% from pre-recession levels? But, 6 YEARS AFTER the end of the recession it can't be due to the policies put in place by Obama.
Moron.
Fuck you are stupid. But keep believing your news source that wasn't to use stats from before the recession. Which make zero sense.
And why would anyone use the last month before the recession to compare how 6 YEARS of "recovery" has been for American-born females. I wonder what the definition of RECOVERY means...
God you are a dull one...I see why OZONE sticks up for you. Makes his freeway speed-limit IQ seem like Mensa in comparison. Two peas in a pod...
Yes read up, that's what you did.
I'm not blaming the losses. I'm blaming the lack of recovery after 6 years. Try and keep up next time.
Regardless, you stated it was Obama's war on women. Clearly you are fucktarded.
They don't have the breakdown (that I'm aware of) by foreign-born and American born, but they have the totals:
bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf
1999: 62,042 employed civilian females
2007: 67,792 employed civilian females
That's a gain of over 5 million for females alone between economic cycles. Why again did you want to bring this data up?
Keep gurgling... -
Holy fuck you are stupid. You do know the recession started in 2001, not 1999, right? So you take the peak in 2007 to compare to now, then you use 2 years prior to the peak to compare to 2007.HoustonHusky said:
That's a broad stroke....the "but...but...Bush" response.2001400ex said:
Then you should compare to 2000. We haven't had a good economy since then.HoustonHusky said:
Recovery: a return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.2001400ex said:
I have an 8th grade education, remember? So bear with me when sometimes I don't read everything. But I'm smart enough to know that blaming job losses prior to Obama being elected on Obama and calling it Obama's war on women is FS.HoustonHusky said:
Was it hard to read the first three or four times, or did you just not understand it until I had to point it out to you?2001400ex said:
Why would you use December 2007? That's the month the recession started. Let's use a more reasonable time. Try January 2009. It went from 57,911 to 59,258.HoustonHusky said:I should expect a moron like you not to be able to understand how to use the govt website.
I'll give you instructions:
1) Click here: bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm
2) Under "Women", click the box for "Foreign born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
3) Under "Women", click the box for "Native born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
4) Click the button "Retrieve Data"
Article claim: "Jobs shock: 100% of female employment gains taken by foreigners since 2007"
Foreign Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 9041, July 2015 10028
Native Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 59332, July 2015 59258
Whooo..hoo...part time is down, what 5%/yearly from 2013 so now its only up 170% from pre-recession levels? But, 6 YEARS AFTER the end of the recession it can't be due to the policies put in place by Obama.
Moron.
Fuck you are stupid. But keep believing your news source that wasn't to use stats from before the recession. Which make zero sense.
And why would anyone use the last month before the recession to compare how 6 YEARS of "recovery" has been for American-born females. I wonder what the definition of RECOVERY means...
God you are a dull one...I see why OZONE sticks up for you. Makes his freeway speed-limit IQ seem like Mensa in comparison. Two peas in a pod...
Yes read up, that's what you did.
I'm not blaming the losses. I'm blaming the lack of recovery after 6 years. Try and keep up next time.
Regardless, you stated it was Obama's war on women. Clearly you are fucktarded.
They don't have the breakdown (that I'm aware of) by foreign-born and American born, but they have the totals:
bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf
1999: 62,042 employed civilian females
2007: 67,792 employed civilian females
That's a gain of over 5 million for females alone between economic cycles. Why again did you want to bring this data up?
Keep gurgling...
You are better than that. Oh wait. -
To make you feel better:2001400ex said:
Holy fuck you are stupid. You do know the recession started in 2001, not 1999, right? So you take the peak in 2007 to compare to now, then you use 2 years prior to the peak to compare to 2007.HoustonHusky said:
That's a broad stroke....the "but...but...Bush" response.2001400ex said:
Then you should compare to 2000. We haven't had a good economy since then.HoustonHusky said:
Recovery: a return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.2001400ex said:
I have an 8th grade education, remember? So bear with me when sometimes I don't read everything. But I'm smart enough to know that blaming job losses prior to Obama being elected on Obama and calling it Obama's war on women is FS.HoustonHusky said:
Was it hard to read the first three or four times, or did you just not understand it until I had to point it out to you?2001400ex said:
Why would you use December 2007? That's the month the recession started. Let's use a more reasonable time. Try January 2009. It went from 57,911 to 59,258.HoustonHusky said:I should expect a moron like you not to be able to understand how to use the govt website.
I'll give you instructions:
1) Click here: bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm
2) Under "Women", click the box for "Foreign born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
3) Under "Women", click the box for "Native born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
4) Click the button "Retrieve Data"
Article claim: "Jobs shock: 100% of female employment gains taken by foreigners since 2007"
Foreign Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 9041, July 2015 10028
Native Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 59332, July 2015 59258
Whooo..hoo...part time is down, what 5%/yearly from 2013 so now its only up 170% from pre-recession levels? But, 6 YEARS AFTER the end of the recession it can't be due to the policies put in place by Obama.
Moron.
Fuck you are stupid. But keep believing your news source that wasn't to use stats from before the recession. Which make zero sense.
And why would anyone use the last month before the recession to compare how 6 YEARS of "recovery" has been for American-born females. I wonder what the definition of RECOVERY means...
God you are a dull one...I see why OZONE sticks up for you. Makes his freeway speed-limit IQ seem like Mensa in comparison. Two peas in a pod...
Yes read up, that's what you did.
I'm not blaming the losses. I'm blaming the lack of recovery after 6 years. Try and keep up next time.
Regardless, you stated it was Obama's war on women. Clearly you are fucktarded.
They don't have the breakdown (that I'm aware of) by foreign-born and American born, but they have the totals:
bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf
1999: 62,042 employed civilian females
2007: 67,792 employed civilian females
That's a gain of over 5 million for females alone between economic cycles. Why again did you want to bring this data up?
Keep gurgling...
You are better than that. Oh wait.
1999: 62,042 employed civilian females
2000: 63,586 employed civilian females
2001: 63,737 employed civilian females
2007: 67,792 employed civilian females
2008: 67,876 employed civilian females
Pick whatever group makes you feel warm at night...they still destroy Obama's shitty record.
Keep gurgling moron... -
Ok but lets look at actual facts.HoustonHusky said:
To make you feel better:2001400ex said:
Holy fuck you are stupid. You do know the recession started in 2001, not 1999, right? So you take the peak in 2007 to compare to now, then you use 2 years prior to the peak to compare to 2007.HoustonHusky said:
That's a broad stroke....the "but...but...Bush" response.2001400ex said:
Then you should compare to 2000. We haven't had a good economy since then.HoustonHusky said:
Recovery: a return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.2001400ex said:
I have an 8th grade education, remember? So bear with me when sometimes I don't read everything. But I'm smart enough to know that blaming job losses prior to Obama being elected on Obama and calling it Obama's war on women is FS.HoustonHusky said:
Was it hard to read the first three or four times, or did you just not understand it until I had to point it out to you?2001400ex said:
Why would you use December 2007? That's the month the recession started. Let's use a more reasonable time. Try January 2009. It went from 57,911 to 59,258.HoustonHusky said:I should expect a moron like you not to be able to understand how to use the govt website.
I'll give you instructions:
1) Click here: bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab7.htm
2) Under "Women", click the box for "Foreign born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
3) Under "Women", click the box for "Native born, 16 years and over" -> "Civilian noninstitutional population" -> "Employed"
4) Click the button "Retrieve Data"
Article claim: "Jobs shock: 100% of female employment gains taken by foreigners since 2007"
Foreign Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 9041, July 2015 10028
Native Born Female Workers:
Dec 2007: 59332, July 2015 59258
Whooo..hoo...part time is down, what 5%/yearly from 2013 so now its only up 170% from pre-recession levels? But, 6 YEARS AFTER the end of the recession it can't be due to the policies put in place by Obama.
Moron.
Fuck you are stupid. But keep believing your news source that wasn't to use stats from before the recession. Which make zero sense.
And why would anyone use the last month before the recession to compare how 6 YEARS of "recovery" has been for American-born females. I wonder what the definition of RECOVERY means...
God you are a dull one...I see why OZONE sticks up for you. Makes his freeway speed-limit IQ seem like Mensa in comparison. Two peas in a pod...
Yes read up, that's what you did.
I'm not blaming the losses. I'm blaming the lack of recovery after 6 years. Try and keep up next time.
Regardless, you stated it was Obama's war on women. Clearly you are fucktarded.
They don't have the breakdown (that I'm aware of) by foreign-born and American born, but they have the totals:
bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2012.pdf
1999: 62,042 employed civilian females
2007: 67,792 employed civilian females
That's a gain of over 5 million for females alone between economic cycles. Why again did you want to bring this data up?
Keep gurgling...
You are better than that. Oh wait.
1999: 62,042 employed civilian females
2000: 63,586 employed civilian females
2001: 63,737 employed civilian females
2007: 67,792 employed civilian females
2008: 67,876 employed civilian females
Pick whatever group makes you feel warm at night...they still destroy Obama's shitty record.
Keep gurgling moron...
Jan 1993 - 53,683
Jan 2001 - 63,772
Jan 2009 - 66,674
July 2015 - 69,286
In other words, Obama = Bush. But keep gurgling your fucked up news source that spews lies and misinformation. -
Selectively picking dates to make you feel better, all to come to the conclusion that in the best possible light Obama = Bush (not a high standard to start).
This still ignores the original point which got your panties in a wad, which is Obama has a war on American women. After all, why are 50% (for your selectively chosen timeframe) to 100% (before the last recession to now) female jobs going to foreign-born females?
Road sign IQ...its sad.
-
You are not very observant. Look at those dates again. Fucktard. Check inauguration months.HoustonHusky said:Selectively picking dates to make you feel better, all to come to the conclusion that in the best possible light Obama = Bush (not a high standard to start).
This still ignores the original point which got your panties in a wad, which is Obama has a war on American women. After all, why are 50% (for your selectively chosen timeframe) to 100% (before the last recession to now) female jobs going to foreign-born females?
Road sign IQ...its sad. -
I didn't know the economic cycles managed to sync exactly with election cycles. Must be amazing on how they do that.
And keep ignoring the original point. I would if I was you...you've got nothing to stand on. -
The original point? You mean the one where I discussed whether obamacare cost jobs and you got distracted with the shiny object over here about foreign born bitches. Where your news source lied to you.HoustonHusky said:I didn't know the economic cycles managed to sync exactly with election cycles. Must be amazing on how they do that.
And keep ignoring the original point. I would if I was you...you've got nothing to stand on.
