|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Oct 6, 2012 16:04:16 GMT -5
Now he is a lying CHEATING greedy scumbag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Oct 6, 2012 16:11:03 GMT -5
Honestly I feel Obama has failed us. He took office promising change and has yet to change anything. And Romney is a total snake. He doesnt even pretend to be a good guy. And then the balls on that guy to go on national television and pledge to end pbs. I feel this election is like choosing eating poop or drink pee. You have to pick one, you dont want either but you have to pick.Only if you feel bound by the traditional voting standard. I've stated before that I'll be voting for the same candidate I voted for in the primary. My vote won't "count", but I'll have voted my conscience... ...and no, my candidate's name is not Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson.....or Vermin Supreme. Now he is a lying CHEATING greedy scumbag. Oh god, here it comes. If he wins, this will be all the Bush haters used for eight god damned years to print off an endless supply of "not my President" paraphernalia. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 6, 2012 19:34:05 GMT -5
And the information that counts in the UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER, the information that tells the whole story IS the 7.8% number. Underemployed is NOT unemployed. No matter how you spin it, the UNEMPLOYMENT rate in this country is 7.8%. No, it isn't. The unemployment number you're referencing does not take into consideration the number of people who are no longer actively looking for a job. So no, it's not "spin." We're talking about facts here. Look, I'm not saying that Mitt Romney is good. Don't mistake that. I'm not even saying that the numbers were better under Bush because quite frankly, I don't give a shit. But to say that the unemployment rate in America right now is 7.8% is flat out incorrect and attention must be called to it. This isn't a Republican or a Democrat problem. It's a problem that both sides have played a part in and it's something that we cannot let them get away with. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 6, 2012 19:35:20 GMT -5
Honestly I feel Obama has failed us. He took office promising change and has yet to change anything. And Romney is a total snake. He doesnt even pretend to be a good guy. And then the balls on that guy to go on national television and pledge to end pbs. I feel this election is like choosing eating poop or drink pee. You have to pick one, you dont want either but you have to pick. What don't you like about Gary Johnson? |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 6, 2012 22:36:12 GMT -5
And the information that counts in the UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER, the information that tells the whole story IS the 7.8% number. Underemployed is NOT unemployed. No matter how you spin it, the UNEMPLOYMENT rate in this country is 7.8%. No, it isn't. The unemployment number you're referencing does not take into consideration the number of people who are no longer actively looking for a job. So no, it's not "spin." We're talking about facts here. Look, I'm not saying that Mitt Romney is good. Don't mistake that. I'm not even saying that the numbers were better under Bush because quite frankly, I don't give a crap. But to say that the unemployment rate in America right now is 7.8% is flat out incorrect and attention must be called to it. This isn't a Republican or a Democrat problem. It's a problem that both sides have played a part in and it's something that we cannot let them get away with. Whether your looking or not doesn't change if your unemployed or not. There's not a "Unemployed And Looking" rate and an "Unemployed And Not Looking" rate here. If you're unemployed - through whatever means, and whether you're looking for work or not, you're in this 7.8% number. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 6, 2012 23:09:00 GMT -5
Whether your looking or not doesn't change if your unemployed or not. There's not a "Unemployed And Looking" rate and an "Unemployed And Not Looking" rate here. If you're unemployed - through whatever means, and whether you're looking for work or not, you're in this 7.8% number. Do some research, bud. Let me find you your own, liberal news network (Huffington Post) explaining why you're wrong... "The standard unemployment rate, known as "U-3," counts people as unemployed only if they looked for work sometime in the past four weeks." "The alternate rate Hunter has in mind, called "U-5," includes people who looked for work in the past year, but not in the past four weeks, as well as "discouraged workers" not looking for work because they believe none is available." "Oddly, Hunter's bill neglects the most inclusive measure of unemployment, the U-6 rate, which counts the 7.7 million people working part-time because they can't find full-time jobs. Add those folks, and the national unemployment rate would be 14.5 percent." |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 7, 2012 12:23:15 GMT -5
Economists don't factor in those who are unemployed but not looking for work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 7, 2012 20:59:10 GMT -5
Are we talking about what economists count, or what the actual number of unemployed people is?
Seriously. I understand what they count, but what they count is fictitious bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 7, 2012 21:22:59 GMT -5
Yes, what economists count is what matters. The other numbers are extremely politicized. The fact that they are only ever brought up by the party that's not in power proves that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 7, 2012 23:32:51 GMT -5
Oh, okay. You're right. The REAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS are not the number of people unemployed. It's the number of people employed that "economists" CHOOSE to report.
I'm done with this intellectually- disabled conversation. We've apparently decided to completely disregard reality for the sake of political spin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 8, 2012 8:50:55 GMT -5
Let's say you're going to manufacture widgets. So you do some market research to see if there is even demand for said widgets. You talk to 500 people. 100 of them tell you they will never buy your widget. They don't want it even if it's free. The other 400 tell you they may be interested in it based on the price. Do you go back and report that there are 500 potential customers? No. Because 100 people are not going to buy your widget. You have 400 potential customers.
Job reports are the same deal. If you opened a crap ton of new jobs tomorrow those who have stopped looking for work are not going to get up off their ass and go apply for those jobs. It'll take them a while to get motivated again. So you don't count them. Counting them serves only to inflate the numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 8, 2012 10:26:26 GMT -5
Inflate WHAT numbers?
Isn't the discussion, "How many people in America are unemployed?"
Using anything other than the actual number of people who are unemployed is bullshit. I'm sorry, it just is. If you want to say that it's the, "number of people actively looking for employment," then fine - no argument from me.
People are either "employed" or "unemployed." There's really no middle ground. You either have a job or you don't. Based on the numbers that are reported by "economists," there is a fraction of the population that simply doesn't exist. I'm sorry, but that's preposterous.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 8, 2012 11:20:53 GMT -5
Is that not what I said a few posts back? Basically that there is no in-between here? I said "underemployed" is not "unemployed". You said that not counting the "underemployed" in the 7.8% number is not accurate. But there, right above this, you just said "you're either employed or unemployed. You either have a job, or you don't."
You can't argue for and be on both sides; but by saying that not counting the underemployed makes the number inaccurate and then saying "you're either employed or unemployed, there is no middle ground" - you essentially are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 8, 2012 11:37:25 GMT -5
I said nothing about "underemployed." PAY ATTENTION.
Go back and read what I'm saying. I'm NOT talking about "underemployment." If you actually paid attention to anything that anyone else said, other than your little world of DFL-led propaganda, maybe you'd learn something.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 8, 2012 12:00:03 GMT -5
You didn't? What's this then? "Oddly, Hunter's bill neglects the most inclusive measure of unemployment, the U-6 rate, which counts the 7.7 million people working part-time because they can't find full-time jobs. Add those folks, and the national unemployment rate would be 14.5 percent." Because that clearly mentions underemployment. But you didn't say ANYTHING about that did you? |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 8, 2012 12:07:01 GMT -5
Do you know how to read? It clearly says, "Hunter's bill NEGLECTS that group." Meaning, because they have jobs (even part-time), he doesn't count them - like you and I don't - in his analysis.
Not to mention, that's only a PART of the article I quoted.
But there's an entire group of people who are unemployed but not counted by your 7.8% number because they haven't "actively looked for a job within the past four weeks. "
What part of this is so hard for you to comprehend right now? Do you need a diagram?
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 8, 2012 12:13:00 GMT -5
Job reports are the same deal. If you opened a crap ton of new jobs tomorrow those who have stopped looking for work are not going to get up off their ass and go apply for those jobs. It'll take them a while to get motivated again. So you don't count them. Counting them serves only to inflate the numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 8, 2012 12:32:52 GMT -5
Didn't you just say that people are either "unemployed" or "employed?"
So are the deflated people who stopped looking for work now "employed" in your crazy little world?
Honestly, how full of crapare you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 8, 2012 13:07:44 GMT -5
It's not an either or thing. You've got those who are unemployed and are looking, those who are unemployed and not looking and those who are employed but wish they had something better. Economists only count the first category in most cases. Why? For the simple reason that if you put up a Help Wanted sign in the window, those people are going to be the ones that answer. They are all that matter in most cases because they are the ones who are available to be hired.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 8, 2012 13:19:18 GMT -5
Now he is a lying CHEATING greedy scumbag. It was a handkerchief. He was wiping his nose with it later in the debate. |
|
I dont know good luck 
