You repeatedly cite the talking point that fewer people are working since President Obama took office, or that the reason the "real unemployment" is worse than the unemployment reported by the BLS has to do with labor participation. You blame Obama for this. The problem is that the decline in labor participation rate was predicted in 2002 (Age-adjusted labor force participation rates, 1960–2045) and 2006 (A new look at long-term labor force projections to 2050)
The large majority of the labor participation rate decline is demographics, not due to the recession and recovery. In the 2002 projection, they projected 66.8 percent in 2005, 65.9% in 2010, and 64.6% in 2015. In reality, we had 65.8% in 2005 and 64.8% in 2010. While we're a little off from those projections, they aren't far, and given that those predictions never envisioned a financial crisis like we experienced, there is no reason to believe President Obama has had much, if anything to do with it.
The gravity of the baby boomers is going to eventually drive the labor force participation rate to 60% in 2040, and there is nothing any politician can do about it.
"President Obama has no responsibility for the fact that people have a sense that things have gone wrong in this country? President Obama has no responsibility for the fact that families are hurting? That's the basic reality.
And the attempt by the administration and its apologists to try to use numbers and statistics to convince the American people of stuff that they know from their own experience... That simply isn't going to work." --Michael Medved
It was a valiant effort, Michael, but I think you lost this round.