Question to ponder over the weekend: What would Barack Obama had to have done in order to not be re-elected? Maybe we don’t want to know the answer.
From Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released jobs numbers for January Friday showing that nonfarm payroll employment increased by 157,000 and the unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent.
Lost in these headline numbers was another rise in the number of people not in the labor force.
This number now stands at a staggering 89 million, up from 80.5 million when President Obama took office.
This means that there are currently 8.5 million more Americans not in the labor force than just four years ago.
To put it in economic terms, the labor force is your johnson and the Obama administration is an Olympic sized pool full of cold water.
In Obama’s first term, the size of the US workforce shrunk by more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Washington DC, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine.
And of course with a shrinking labor force comes a shrinking tax base — a difference that the Dems laughingly want everybody to believe can be made up by making those at the top of the income chart pay their “fair share” while reckless spending continues.
So what happens when the size of the workforce undergoes a massive drop? The unemployment rate goes up — unless those people can be allowed to easily slip out of the workforce and not be counted as unemployed. That’s why the government actually encourages and recruits people to go on public assistance, because the more people who give up looking for work, the fewer are counted in unemployment statistics.
In some states, such as Maine, the number of welfare recipients are greater than the number of taxpayers. The left loves the word “sustainability” when it refers to the environment, but they don’t give a damn about it as far as economic health is concerned.