Dr. Ben Carson for V. P. in 2016 and for President in 2024?!

You're off by about 150 million there. Maybe you should try that research thing again.

You didn't answer my question. Why should we be more concerned with how many people can work as opposed to how many people want to work?

And you can't even say what your number is, much less whether it is increasing or decreasing. That's not going to help anyone.

 

Just going by what you said earlier (90 million but 85 million who won't work for whatever reason. Go back a few posts.)

Because "want to" misses people who drop out because the economy is (*)(*)(*)(*) for an extended period of time and jump on the tit. I already told you, and you quoted it. Your number has loopholes and underestimates unemployment. It also allows a politician in a bad economy to say "look I fixed it the number went down " when it went down because the (*)(*)(*)(*) has dragged on so long people have given up hope entirely and either gone black market or started pulling from the government tit or usually both

I can't say what the number is because its not tracked currently. Its not tracked currently because it doesn't allow for smoke and mirrors games. Give me the bureau of the census for a year and I'll get the number for you.

 

Some threads tend to go far afield.

Benny "Bones" Carson, a retired dude with no electoral experience whatsoever who has enthusiastically supported socialized medicine and strict gun control being the champion of the TPs is exceedingly delightful.

If the RNC decides that renting the entire State of Utah to accommodate their teeming herd of "candidates" debates is prohibitive, they may opt for a lottery for the Party nomination. That would give Benny an equal shot at it, and cancel the establishment's heavily-bankrolled prissy boys' lock on it.

Hey, if the GOP could throw fits over nationalized RomneyCare and then nominate Romney, a socialized-medicine gun confiscator is hardly beyond the realm.

 

Actually….. I disagree with Dr. Ben Carson…….. "the first thing we need to do is get rid of for-profit insurance companies"….. actually……… there is another problem that needs to be looked at first?!

For profit insurance companies………. should probably be more like seventh or eighth on the list of priorities?! But…… he is a surgeon…… and he knows more about that particular aspect of the problem!

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...our-billion-dollars-how-can-we-do-2013-a.html
President Lincoln saved taxpayers four billion dollars...how can we do this in 2013?
I was given a copy of this article in 1994.

After reading this article those lectures from Economics 101, 212 and Economic History sure took on a whole new level of importance.

http://www.michaeljournal.org/lincolnkennedy.htm
Melvin Sickler:

OK, so how do we apply this information in 2013 without scaring the guys on Wallstreet, who have a tendency to go out on their balconies and jump, if investors get scared....which actually could happen even if government did something intelligent!!!!!???????

 

WHY? WTF? it's disguting to me that people are so STUPID as to think that just because somebody is a genius doctor that they are better at everything else too, what a crock of shyt!

 

Okay, bad grammar on my part. I meant to say there are 90 million who can work but don't, and 85 million of them won't work for whatever reason.

The number you're looking for is tracked, and has been since 1994. They're called "Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now". Now maybe you can explain why we should count people who say they want a job, but can't be bothered to look for a job, as unemployed?

 

Benny's having been a capable surgeon is not why anyone supports him. He has shown no competence whatsoever in governance, but has spouted some wacky notions that appeal to wacko birds.

Thus, they ignore his total lack of a political resumé, his enthusiasm for socializing medicine, his advocacy for stricter gun control, and his ignorance of delegated powers under the Constitution.

They are aroused soly by his nutty, extremist utterances.

And since he has no future in elective office, their ecstasy is a harmless self-indulgence.

 

Because they're sucking from the government tit, draining the economy. They are also unemployed so it stands to reason they would be counted amongst the unemployed.

 

Doesn't it seem reasonable to divide the population into those who have jobs, those who want jobs but don't have one, and those who don't want a job?

 

since we use it as a weather gauge for how the economy is doing? Not really. I want to see who is employed and therefore paying in and who is not employed and therefore is not paying in.
Remember that the producers (those who make an income) are supporting everyone else, whether that's through welfare/taxation or because they buy their stay at home spouse or school going child stuff.
It makes far more sense to represent those putting into the system vs those taking out. And yes a stay at home spouse or college student who does not work IS taking out.

 

Currently about 59% of the population works, or about 65% of non-institutional population over 16 years, producers by your definition, while the rest are takers. Do you think this is indicative of a healthy economy?

 

Negatory

 

Well, when you put it like that, who can argue with you.

 

You asked a yes or no question and you received your answer. No I do not think 41% of the pop being takers indicates a functional economy.

 

So what is the proper proportion of producers to takers for a functional economy? Was our economy functional during the 1950's and 1960's when 42% to 45% of the population were "takers"?

 

A Black man has no chance whatsoever within the Republican Party. Except by the promoters and marketeers at the RNC who'd like to paint the party as somewhat tolerant, Benny ain't even worth talking about.

 

I'd say 3/4s or so. 75% producers.

Ah yes that tired, old, horse you keep flogging. What had just happened before the 50's? That's right!! Most of the planet had their manufactering destroyed entirely, most of their infrastructure gone, cities decimated (or more deci meaning 10), food crops ruined, and many of their workers lay dead or imprisoned etc.
And who HADN'T that happened to? That's right!! Us.
I'd hate to be condescending by explaining the glaringly obvious as some take offense to such things. You get it now right?

- - - Updated - - -

He'd have plenty of chance if he hadn't shot himself in the foot be saying people in cities shouldn't own semi automatic weapons.

 

With nearly 25% of the population under 18, you're basically saying that every able-bodied adult should have a job to have a functional economy. Considering the employment-population ratio has probably never been above 65% in the history of this country, It's a wonder we're still here. None of the 10 best economies today are even above 66%. Can you name any industrial country in the world to day that has anything close to 75% employment to population? Even China with its communist government is only about 68%.

Along with Canada, Mexico, and every other country between 25 and 180 west longitude. Funny how many people think the US was the only major country that survived WW2 intact. Mexico had sustained economic growth of 3 to 4 percent and modest 3 percent inflation annually from the 1940s until the 1970s. If our 55% to 58% employment-population ratio didn't hurt us then, why should it be a problem today?

 

You quoted 2 numbers. 59 and 65 the non institutional over 16. We're talking the 2nd here hoss. 3/4s of those of working age not locked up.

Because Canada and Mexico have always been known as industrial powerhouses and huge exporters of manufactured goods. All those 3rd world south and central American (*)(*)(*)(*) holes too. You wanna try that again?

The 10 best economies today are top of the (*)(*)(*)(*) heap. Whooptie freaking doo

 

Okay, we'll stick with the civilian labor force participation rate (non-institutional population actively working or seeking work) to compare apples to apples. The World Bank publishes data on this rate for 218 countries around the world. Can you find a single industrialized country that is above 70%? The average for OECD countries is only 60%.

 

Really, have you seen these?



10. "I have to confess that it's crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian."

9. "God bless the America we are trying to create."

8. "We have a lot of kids who don't know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word."

7. “He ran a gas station down in St. Louis... No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century.” –introducing a quote by Mahatma Gandhi

6. "Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” –on Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions

5. “If I didn’t kick his ass every day, he wouldn’t be worth anything.” –on Bill Clinton

4. "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."

3. "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

2. "I have said that I'm not running and I'm having a great time being pres — being a first-term senator." —on her presidential ambitions

1. "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."


Forgetting the "sniper" and Benghazi quotes.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/hillaryclinton/a/hillaryquotes.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/hillaryclinton/a/clinton-quotes.htm

 

Can you find a single industrialized country whose economy ISN"T teetering on the brink of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ter or actually in said (*)(*)(*)(*)ter??

 

My favorite is the royal plural quote

 

Other than the United States (2.2% annual GDP growth), which I argue isn't teetering on the brink of economic failure, there's Australia (2.5% annual GDP growth), Canada (2.0% annual GDP growth), Iceland (3.5% annual GDP growth), Israel (3.2% annual GDP growth), Japan (1.6% annual GDP growth), Luxembourg (2.0% annual GDP growth), Malta (2.9% annual GDP growth), New Zealand (2.5% annual GDP growth), South Africa (2.2% annual GDP growth), Sweden (1.5% annual GDP growth), Switzerland (1.9% annual GDP growth), Turkey (4.1% annual GDP growth), and the United Kingdom (1.7% annual GDP growth).

 

Well there's your problem right there. You think the economies of the world are doing just fine.