|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 10, 2012 20:08:29 GMT -5
Obama is definitely an offender as well, and maybe it's just a product of a better-run campaign, but it seems like Mitt is guilty far more often and on more of his core issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 10, 2012 20:22:13 GMT -5
I don't think it's the campaign. I think it's just that Mitt is more intellectually dishonest than Barack is.
I don't trust either of them whatsoever, though, because I'm not an insane person.
|
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 10, 2012 20:30:52 GMT -5
I don't think it's the campaign. I think it's just that Mitt is more intellectually dishonest than Barack is. I don't trust either of them whatsoever, though, because I'm not an insane person.Says the guy with an Info Wars link under his avatar.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 10, 2012 20:34:42 GMT -5
Hey, you don't have to believe everything you hear to enjoy the entertainment value.
|
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Oct 10, 2012 21:14:22 GMT -5
Agreed. I think Alex Jones has said "New World Order" more times than Tony Schiavone and Eric Bischoff combined.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 10, 2012 22:20:23 GMT -5
I understand that the problem is the way they report the numbers. But that doesn't mean we should just accept it. If those numbers don't give us an accurate representation of the people who don't have jobs at the moment, we should reject them for something more precise, not accept them as the gospel. But the number doesn't measure the percentage of unemployed people in the population. It measures the percentage of unemployed in the workforce. The workforce is what matters. Those who are not part of the workforce don't matter until they become part of the workforce again. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 11, 2012 1:24:19 GMT -5
The number is  ing stupid, that's my point. It's a bullcrapstat. We should talk about how many people are unemployed, not the number of people they determine to be important. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 11, 2012 8:24:51 GMT -5
Is it also stupid that there are 12 inches in a foot instead of ten? 'Cuz that's the logic you're using. You disagree with the stat that experts agree on.
It's a measure of the unemployed workforce. Not the unemployed population. My grandfather is nearly 90 and hasn't worked for 30-40 years. Should he count? What about when he first retired. Fifty something year old guy who doesn't work for a living, but is physically and mentally capable of doing so. Should he count? No. He's not part of the workforce any more than the guy who's camping on his mom's couch. What of the 16 year old who worked last summer, but now is back in school and is not working at all or looking for work. Does he count as unemployed? No. What of the college student who's in school full time and not looking for work. He's 20 years old and in the prime of life. He's physically and mentally capable of working but doesn't because he's concentrating on school. Do we count him as unemployed too? There is a reason for that standard and there is a reason why economists everywhere use it. It's an accurate measurement of the unemployed workforce. It's not supposed to be a measurement of every able bodied person who could work, but doesn't for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 11, 2012 10:22:09 GMT -5
Is it also stupid that there are 12 inches in a foot instead of ten? 'Cuz that's the logic you're using. You disagree with the stat that experts agree on. It's a measure of the unemployed workforce. Not the unemployed population. My grandfather is nearly 90 and hasn't worked for 30-40 years. Should he count? What about when he first retired. Fifty something year old guy who doesn't work for a living, but is physically and mentally capable of doing so. Should he count? No. He's not part of the workforce any more than the guy who's camping on his mom's couch. What of the 16 year old who worked last summer, but now is back in school and is not working at all or looking for work. Does he count as unemployed? No. What of the college student who's in school full time and not looking for work. He's 20 years old and in the prime of life. He's physically and mentally capable of working but doesn't because he's concentrating on school. Do we count him as unemployed too? There is a reason for that standard and there is a reason why economists everywhere use it. It's an accurate measurement of the unemployed workforce. It's not supposed to be a measurement of every able bodied person who could work, but doesn't for whatever reason. +1 when my hour limit is up, sir. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 11, 2012 13:41:54 GMT -5
It's a pointless stat if it doesn't count everyone who isn't working. Sorry, it just is.
It's a bullcrapstat when the Republicans tout it, it's a bullcrapstat when the Democrats tout it. It's bipartisan bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 11, 2012 13:48:20 GMT -5
It's a pointless stat if it doesn't count everyone who isn't working. Sorry, it just is. It's a bullcrap stat when the Republicans tout it, it's a bullcrap stat when the Democrats tout it. It's bipartisan bullcrap. So you're saying that a 2-year old should be counted in the unemployment rate? That just sounds completely ridiculous.... |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 11, 2012 15:42:03 GMT -5
People that are physically and mentally capable of working should be counted.
How many times does this have to be explained to you, bud?
|
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Oct 11, 2012 15:57:59 GMT -5
A co Worker was talking to me about how everything is controlled by people who are not seen. And that these candidates are just pupets. And then he went on to tell me that the economy is just a bubble which grows and deflates and it's just luck if you're the "president" while things are good.
Really made me think.
The other day watching the debates I looked at Barrack and Mit. And I noticed they looked almost identical. Like if I took a Jakks figure wearing a suit and I swapped out white hands and face with black hands and face.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 11, 2012 16:16:28 GMT -5
A co Worker was talking to me about how everything is controlled by people who are not seen. And that these candidates are just pupets. And then he went on to tell me that the economy is just a bubble which grows and deflates and it's just luck if you're the "president" while things are good. Really made me think. The other day watching the debates I looked at Barrack and Mit. And I noticed they looked almost identical. Like if I took a Jakks figure wearing a suit and I swapped out white hands and face with black hands and face. They don't really look the same, but their stances are very similar on many issues. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 11, 2012 16:18:26 GMT -5
People that are physically and mentally capable of working should be counted. How many times does this have to be explained to you, bud? All I am saying is that - as ridiculous as you say the 7.8% number is - it's just as ridiculous for you to think that the number should include every single person in this country. Whether they're retired or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Oct 11, 2012 16:18:44 GMT -5
A co Worker was talking to me about how everything is controlled by people who are not seen. And that these candidates are just pupets. And then he went on to tell me that the economy is just a bubble which grows and deflates and it's just luck if you're the "president" while things are good. Really made me think. The other day watching the debates I looked at Barrack and Mit. And I noticed they looked almost identical. Like if I took a Jakks figure wearing a suit and I swapped out white hands and face with black hands and face. They don't really look the same, but their stances are very similar on many issues. Well I was talking about the suits. It seemed the only difference was the tie, one blue the other red, and of course the color hands and head. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 11, 2012 16:49:10 GMT -5
People that are physically and mentally capable of working should be counted. How many times does this have to be explained to you, bud? So you count the 60 yr old retiree then? And the 20 yr old college student? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid given that neither of those people are looking for work. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 11, 2012 16:54:40 GMT -5
As I explained before, unless you can make the case that could not accept any job, for any amount of money, then they are indeed a "potential employee." Yes, I would count them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 11, 2012 17:24:53 GMT -5
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my life. It serves no other purpose than to just inflate the numbers needlessly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 11, 2012 17:39:20 GMT -5
Or it accurately represents the number of people who don't have jobs.
Either/or.
|
|
