IOWA!

This is a political problem.

The ACA is failing. It is objectively failing (regardless of political position) and non-partisan people in the health care industry know that it is failing. It is succeeding in one metric-- the number of people insured. But healthcare costs are rising, and the number of healthcare providers is decreasing as small clinics in rural areas are going out of business. The ACA is not sustainable.

I am a strong progressive (on most issues). I voted for Obama every time since the 2008 primaries. I am still of the opinion that the ACA is in deep deep trouble.

We need to address this quickly, our healthcare system is crumbling now. Bernie is addressing this head on.

Quote max:


Perhaps not, but I think we can expect Hillary to govern from the same page as her husband and Barack Obama, and that's fine with me. Here's a chart of the Employment-Population ratio for people in their prime working years, 25-54. Note how high Bill Clinton got it, and also note how it fell disastrously during Bush's years and note how Obama was able to turn it around and have the country going a strong positive direction again.



The more people working during their prime working years equals the more taxes being collected to keep Social Security and Medicare running in their present form, to help finance universal health care in whatever form, and to cut the deficit and more easily pay the interest on the debt. I am fine with a leader who performs like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Bernie sounds like a guy with great ideas, but Hillary has taken the Republicans' best shots and she's come out on top every time.

I really shouldn't do this, but....

Your graph is severely skewed. It doesn't even cover a 10% spread and you want to say that "Note how high Bill Clinton got it, and also note how it fell disastrously during Bush's years and note how Obama was able to turn it around and have the country going a strong positive direction again." I'm calling bullshit all over your graph and your translation of it.

You are right McGentrix. And also... the fact that Obama beat Hillary Clinton makes the argument even more awkward.

Quote McGentrix:

Oh, so in other words all graphs must go down to zero or else they are "skewed"? I call bullshit on that. You clearly have not seen a great number of graphs in your life, because most graphs simply go down to slightly below the lowest numerical value of the chart. The graph maker assumes the reader is someone who understands this.

Incidentally, are you trying to say that a difference of 4% or more in the Employment-Population ratio is not significant and worthy of attention? Remember, you are talking about millions of jobs here.

When it comes to Labor Force Participation Rate, you righties can't shut up. But put the far more accurate Employment-Population ratio in prime earning years, (25-54), up there, and you cry "Foul!"

The graph shows the rise and fall of the percentatge of people employed during their prime working years under three Presidents. You can make of it what you will. Sorry to have actual data and facts intrude on the other posters' speculations, not that there is anything wrong with speculating. But there is also a place for data as well. That's why I'm posting it again. So you can cry, "Spam!"

Hey, maybe they did their own poll - of five people, and the difference was 10%. The age group was 7 to 15.

LOL, they probably did. I wonder if the Republicans, in their haste to outdo each other getting rid of government departments like the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy, also plan to get rid of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, where this chart is from?

Ya never know. They want to do away with social security - which will impact republicans too - - many who depend on social security to live. They will work to take away their life blood for their politics. Doesn't make any sense, but I'm not a republican.

That's so true. The Republican's base is mostly the older age groups, and they show up repeatedly to vote for the legislators who plan to eliminate a big part of their retirement income and 80% of their medical bills. Bush the son spent his whole two terms trying to divert funds from Social Security to individual accounts, which would bankrupt the system in short order.

Astonishing that Republicans get anyone even near retirement age to vote for them.

I guess you would also have to call bull **** on anyone that claims the employment rate isn't really 4.9% because of the reduction in labor force participation.

The bottom line.

No matter what Hillary partisans say, Bernie and his followers are more credible with the American public.

Proof: Bernie closing in on her.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268362-sanders-tied-with-clinton-nationwide-poll

Against the MSM and their paymasters, people turn to the Bern.

Most economists use this statistic based on a broader age spectrum (16 -65), that's why it is called the Work Force Participation Rate. Both it and the trajectory of the 25-55 yrs rate show average values during the past eight years well below thosse that prevailed during the two decades that preceded this one. Statistics based on both age groups involve other factors driving non participation in the work force (= unemployed and not looking for a job), and both show different trends.. The statistic based on the 16 -64 year cadre shows a monotone decline starting in 2008 from previously steady values amounting to 3.2 % of the population cadre. It wasunaffected by the last (relatively weak) recession in 2001, The statistic based on the 25-55 year cadre (the "prime" one in your termonology} shows a sharp 5% drop in 2008/9 followed by a slow recovery, increasing 2,5 % in the past six years.

The statistic for the 15-65 year cadre has, since 2009, seen a monotone decline from steady values for the previous two decades and is still declining. The statistic for the 25-55 year cadre is rising at a rate comparable to the recovery that followed the previous 2001 recession but over the past seven years has only recovered half of what it lost in the 2008 recession and remains far below its values since 1995.

What does that tell you? Most economists agree that we are in an economic recovery that is detectably better than those in the sclerotic economies of our European partners, but relatively slow compared to our historical norms.

Not a lot there to brag about unless you're in the business of cherry picking data to justify your prejudices.

Cherry picking? Most economists actually use a variety of measures for the economy. How many people heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate before a couple years ago when it became the GOP's favorite statistic? This previously little-known measure became the trumpet call of the GOP social media warriors. Fact is, it was little-known because it has severe weaknesses as a single measure of the health of the American economy, but conservatives decided to push it to try to make the economy under Obama look bad.

Remember when it was OK to use unemployment rate in conversation? No more. Say the unemployment rate is quite nice and for sure you will attract a whole host of conservatives "educating" you that you really don't know anything about economics unless you get with the Labor Force Participation Rate. And you know what? I agree the unemployment rate has its limitations as single gauge of the American economy-but it's better than the Labor Force Participation Rate by far. If ten million Americans lose their jobs next week, the unemployment rate will surge but the Labor Force Participation Rate will remain unchanged. To say the least, that limits its utility as general economic measure.

As for the age limitation, it makes sense, especially when dealing with a recovery from the worst economic setback since the 1930s. Ages 25-54 is the heart of one's working life, the period where one sets oneself up for childraising and retirement. Not doing well until your are 25 is not such a big deal if you do well after 25. Besides, ages 16-25 is plagued by education issues-a student is counted as someone not seeking employment in the Labor Force Participation Rate. Similarly, people who retire before age 55 because they are set for life will appear on the graph as not looking for work, which will seem to be a negative thing. The age limitation of 25-54 means you are by and large dealing with people who are in the center of their working lives, whom you don't have to worry about whether they are preparing themselves for the workforce through schooling or have already done so well that they can afford to stop working early. It presents a much more accurate picture of the employment situation than the age-unlimited version. Which is why the GOP avoids it like the plague.

PS: Suit yourself. You see nothing to brag about, I see a leader taking at the beginning of 2009 after being stuck with a catastrophe from his predecessor and turning it right around. Potato, potahto, I suppose.

Ive been running my ass off because my wife of 78 years fell and broke her arm. They did an operation on it and put a rod and pin in it but it dident take so they are talking a shoulder replacement. 5 doctors and two hospitals in 5 of 5 days this week. Enough of our problems. I havent been able to pay much attention to this site but I have been keeping up with the news and I have a question for the Bernieites. You all accuse the Clintons of being liers but accept anything Bernie says as gods own truth. Bernie has been in politics for 25 years. He knows how politics in Washington works and he is claiming he can get a republican house and senate to pass universal collage for all american kids, and he is going to raise the taxes on the rich, and he is going to fix medicare, ama with single payer ins. He is going to remove the 1% from being the most powerful group in politics. How is he going to get a republican congress to do these things? Answer is, he is not going to even if he were to happen to be elected president in spite of him being branded communist, socialist. In plain english Bernie is a lieing politician who will make any claim he thinks will go over with the ultraliberals in order to have a chance to run for president no matter how much it hurts the people. A republican Supreme Court will put the last nail in the liberal coffin. from today it will be 3 years after the 2020 census before the gerrymandered republican states can be fixed and probably not until 2030 census. Bernie Sanders is a blatent lier and all you Bernieates are unthinking robots for believeing another politician who is telling you just what you want to hear. A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT AND A CAR IN EVERY GARAGE.

Here's Bernie's truth gage from Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

CI, I have my own opinion, I dont care what politifact said. If he claims he can get this stuff through a republican congress, and he has, than in my eyes he is a liar. He has to know he is full of shyt after 25 years in congress. Roosevelt had a democratic congress, Johnson had a democratic congress. It will take a democratic congress to get even one of these initiatives through congress and that aint going to happen for 10 to 30 years. Hope all you Bernieates dont hang yourselves when reality sets in.

As is increasingly usual, you are ignoring the fairly obvious salient factor in all this. The workforce participation rate has been for the past five decades a measure that has been fairly constant in its value. The steady monotone decline we have seen for the past eight years is very highly uusual both in its duration and magnitude. THAT is why one sees many references to it, particularly from economists.

It is certainly true that Republican partisans note it to criticize current economic policies over which there is substantial disagreement between the two parties. However that is no more significant than the crowing of Democrat partisans who focus only on an unemployment rate that has at last fallen back to historical levels. We are indeed undergoing a recovery from the 2008 recession and our economy is growing again. However the recovery really is slower than nearly all previous ones, and our GDP growth appears to be tapering off, despite highly unusual and prolongued monetary stimulus by the FED. THAT merits some concern.

You cherry pick favorable statistics to support your unfounded assertions that everything is OK, indeed beyond criticism. In the next breath assert that any contrary view is exclusivey the work of "conservatives".

That is nonsense.

Did you bother to read the link I posted? It was predicted in mid 2000's that the labor force participation would go down. This is not something unexpected. There was a large population that will be retiring over the next 20 years.

In the late 1980's and early 90's computers were doing much of the work in the steelmill I worked in. They dident lay anyone off they just dident hire replacements for those who retired.