"Its my way or the hiway" thank you BHO

[G.T.]

ironic post is ironic.

 

[pinqy]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

no retired people have no place in that number and yes that is a big part of the 90 milliion

no place in which number? And what is a big part of the 90 million?

7% UE is a lie and you know it

11,316,000 looking for work, 144,170,000 working, for a labor force of 155,486,000
11,316,000/155,486,000 = 7.3%
What about that is a lie?

I over stated 14?

Well, the U6 is 13.7%, but in any case you're claiming that as "unemployed" when the U6 include many people who have jobs, ad many people not trying to work. How do you justify either as unemployed?

I cannot prove it either way because so many people are not in the number

What can't you prove and what number are you referring to? And why should those not included be included?

Please pay more attention to your pronouns, it can be quite confusing.

 

[Montecresto]

one thing that is carved in stone is the fact we Conservative Christians will never convince you scumbag liberal heathens that we are right..., AND you liarberal heathen scumbags will never convince us RIGHTIES you have a brain.

this shut down is due to democriminals failure to compromise or negotiate, it's in your hero's lap and being a muslime mulatto he will not give an inch, just like his terrorist brothers

There's no Christian liberals in America?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The REPUBLICANS own this shutdown.

You guys can tell yourselves otherwise, but the American people know what's going on.

The GOP decided to make ACA their do or die battle in Congress over the last year and they lost it.

Now like petulant children they cause the gov shutdown?

Assholes

This deception has worked for as long as I can remember. Republicans get blamed for everything, which might work out well for us in the end. We'll get all the blame but also all the credit for starting a new trend in ice cream, when California's rolling blackouts spread across the nation and nobody has time to yank out the ice cream maker.

Even tea partyers will bring ice cream sandwiches to work and then into congress. There will be a pungent, sticky mess and fat democrats splurging in the bathroom stalls.

 

[JRK]

"Its my way or the hiway" thank you BHO

Ridiculous.

Implementing Federal law in existence for three years, a law passed by this very House, upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court, and endorsed again by the voters in 2012, is not ‘my way or the highway.’

Are you seriously saying that the voters would vote for the Obamacare tax bill if they were allowed too?

Thats the pont
they did in 2011 and with S Brown

 

[JRK]

one thing that is carved in stone is the fact we Conservative Christians will never convince you scumbag liberal heathens that we are right..., AND you liarberal heathen scumbags will never convince us RIGHTIES you have a brain.

this shut down is due to democriminals failure to compromise or negotiate, it's in your hero's lap and being a muslime mulatto he will not give an inch, just like his terrorist brothers

There's no Christian liberals in America?

do you support abortion?
taking a vzcum cleaner and sucking out a fetus because?
I guess it is a tough question

 

[bendog]

anyone not some irony in this threat topic after the gop shuts down the govt because it lacks the votes to repeal obamacare?

 

[JRK]

Ok, cool. Geaux seems chill for an honest discussion.

So, geaux, do you think that retired people should be INCLUDED in the unemployment number?
Or - go down the list:

Disabled people.
Kids who stopped looking because their parents can cover their current ride, just fine.
A guy who owns a 6 figure lawn business, but stops working each time the winter comes.
A guy who makes 6 figures selling Christmas trees, and stops working when T'is not the season.


I mean - do we at least find common ground in that the formula does in give a clearer picture? Because when you use the "14-15%" number, it's sort of meaningless in context. Because the UE number is supposed to be a health-indicator for the economy, so by excluding the persons not working BUT DONT ECONOMICALLY NEED TO WORK, FOR X-Y-Z- REASONS ABOVE, the number is in fact a MORE ACCURATE INDICATOR, not less accurate.




And all of that aside - if you're (THE OP) going to continue to use "14-15%" - - - - - - i.e. no mathematical adjustments - - - - - - - then you'd need to go and grab the REAL historical percentage in order to see how bad "14-15%" really even is, in context. Because putting that number next to the "5% historical" number as you did in your OP is called intellectual dishonesty.

No ifs, ands or buts about it.

no retired people have no place in that number and yes that is a big part of the 90 milliion
7% UE is a lie and you know it
I over stated 14?
I cannot prove it either way because so many people are not in the number
90 million is close to 30% of the total population

You need to revise your OP.

5% is not historically accurate, if you're stating that the formula is flawed.

It wasn't even a "nice try."

really?
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
take a look from 83-07
if that avg is not 5% then what is it?
5.1?

what I am stating is that at no time have we had so many people added to the non work force
maybe flawed
but that flaw boomed sense Obama took office

 

[G.T.]

no retired people have no place in that number and yes that is a big part of the 90 milliion
7% UE is a lie and you know it
I over stated 14?
I cannot prove it either way because so many people are not in the number
90 million is close to 30% of the total population

You need to revise your OP.

5% is not historically accurate, if you're stating that the formula is flawed.

It wasn't even a "nice try."

really?
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
take a look from 83-07
if that avg is not 5% then what is it?
5.1?

The average using the formula.

The same formula that gets us 7.4% now, not the 14-15% as you described in the OP.





And so if you're taking away the formula for today's number...........you need to also take away the formula for an honest comparison of the historical number.

I cant believe you're a grown assed man and I have to explain this like a 6th time.

 

[JRK]

anyone not some irony in this threat topic after the gop shuts down the govt because it lacks the votes to repeal obamacare?

That is spin
there not trying to repeal anything anymore, stopped doing it before the shut down

 

[pinqy]

no retired people have no place in that number and yes that is a big part of the 90 milliion
7% UE is a lie and you know it
I over stated 14?
I cannot prove it either way because so many people are not in the number
90 million is close to 30% of the total population

You need to revise your OP.

5% is not historically accurate, if you're stating that the formula is flawed.

It wasn't even a "nice try."

really?
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
take a look from 83-07
if that avg is not 5% then what is it?
5.1?

what I am stating is that at no time have we had so many people added to the non work force
maybe flawed
but that flaw boomed sense Obama took office

Your link doesn't work. Copy the series number and people can input it at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

But in any case you're citing the U6 (unemployed + marginally attached + part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force + marginally attached) as real unemployment. But since that wasn't calculated before 1994 you can't be using it for your average.

In other words, you're using a completely different definition of unemployment for your average and current.

 

[JRK]

You need to revise your OP.

5% is not historically accurate, if you're stating that the formula is flawed.

It wasn't even a "nice try."

really?
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
take a look from 83-07
if that avg is not 5% then what is it?
5.1?

The average using the formula.

The same formula that gets us 7.4% now, not the 14-15% as you described in the OP.





And so if you're taking away the formula for today's number...........you need to also take away the formula for an honest comparison of the historical number.

I cant believe you're a grown assed man and I have to explain this like a 6th time.

look
lets make this simple
your a lib and all is good
I amn not a lib and I share facts
fact is 90 million people no longer are counted in the work force
more people have left the work force than have got jobs
yet the UE rate has went down

I do not to be explained to about that
the thread is simple
our president told 140-170 million people in this country to blow me
I dont care what you think, blow me
I think that sucks
you dont
you think our economy is fine and that the UE rate today is not impacted by the millions who have left the work force sense 08
okay by me
I think no matter who the pres is, thats wrong and that if we spent the time on the economy first as we did this ACA, we would be fine
simple enough?

 

[JRK]

You need to revise your OP.

5% is not historically accurate, if you're stating that the formula is flawed.

It wasn't even a "nice try."

really?
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
take a look from 83-07
if that avg is not 5% then what is it?
5.1?

what I am stating is that at no time have we had so many people added to the non work force
maybe flawed
but that flaw boomed sense Obama took office

Your link doesn't work. Copy the series number and people can input it at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

But in any case you're citing the U6 (unemployed + marginally attached + part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force + marginally attached) as real unemployment. But since that wasn't calculated before 1994 you can't be using it for your average.

In other words, you're using a completely different definition of unemployment for your average and current.

fine
use 94-07

 

[JRK]

you libs ignore the thread every-time it bights
and some of you are paid spammers, this is how you keep the lies going

Plain and simple
our president told 140-170 million people to blow me that he cares nothing about our concerns
I think that is fucked up

 

[G.T.]

really?
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
take a look from 83-07
if that avg is not 5% then what is it?
5.1?

The average using the formula.

The same formula that gets us 7.4% now, not the 14-15% as you described in the OP.





And so if you're taking away the formula for today's number...........you need to also take away the formula for an honest comparison of the historical number.

I cant believe you're a grown assed man and I have to explain this like a 6th time.

look
lets make this simple
your a lib and all is good
I amn not a lib and I share facts
fact is 90 million people no longer are counted in the work force
more people have left the work force than have got jobs
yet the UE rate has went down

I do not to be explained to about that
the thread is simple
our president told 140-170 million people in this country to blow me
I dont care what you think, blow me
I think that sucks
you dont
you think our economy is fine and that the UE rate today is not impacted by the millions who have left the work force sense 08
okay by me
I think no matter who the pres is, thats wrong and that if we spent the time on the economy first as we did this ACA, we would be fine
simple enough?

youre wrong about 90% of your assumptions in this post.

and STILL have yet to address your dishonesty in post #1 in this thread.

 

[G.T.]

you libs ignore the thread every-time it bights
and some of you are paid spammers, this is how you keep the lies going

Plain and simple
our president told 140-170 million people to blow me that he cares nothing about our concerns
I think that is fucked up

plain and simple, your OP is dishonest and you continue to ignore that FACT.

 

[JRK]

The average using the formula.

The same formula that gets us 7.4% now, not the 14-15% as you described in the OP.





And so if you're taking away the formula for today's number...........you need to also take away the formula for an honest comparison of the historical number.

I cant believe you're a grown assed man and I have to explain this like a 6th time.

look
lets make this simple
your a lib and all is good
I amn not a lib and I share facts
fact is 90 million people no longer are counted in the work force
more people have left the work force than have got jobs
yet the UE rate has went down

I do not to be explained to about that
the thread is simple
our president told 140-170 million people in this country to blow me
I dont care what you think, blow me
I think that sucks
you dont
you think our economy is fine and that the UE rate today is not impacted by the millions who have left the work force sense 08
okay by me
I think no matter who the pres is, thats wrong and that if we spent the time on the economy first as we did this ACA, we would be fine
simple enough?

youre wrong about 90% of your assumptions in this post.

and STILL have yet to address your dishonesty in post #1 in this thread.

DIs honest?
you say so
I say not
you want to move on or not is fine with me

BHO has told close to half of this country that it is is way and there is no room to comprimise
is that not accurate?
are we facing more people who have left the work force than ever?
is that not accurate?
The UE rate?
is it not in a very bad place comapred to the RR days and just about every year sense?

the thread is at heart and intent 100% accurate
BHO is no leader and those who elected the majority in the house of rep desreve better
this country deserves better

 

[G.T.]

From the OP:"we went from 5% UE for 40 years to 14-15"

This is a lie.

5% was using a F-O-R-M-U-L-A


Using this F-O-R-M-U-L-A for today's number, you do NOT GET 14-15%. You get 7.4%.


**NOT USING THIS F-O-R-M-U-L-A, AND YOU DONT GET 5% AS THE HISTORICAL RATE**

Therefore, your OP is a LIE.

That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Basicially the only thing Repubs have left as leverage is to call Obama a meanie. Excellent strategeory

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

anyone not some irony in this threat topic after the gop shuts down the govt because it lacks the votes to repeal obamacare?

That is spin
there not trying to repeal anything anymore, stopped doing it before the shut down

So this only has to do with the fact that you and others on the right are insane.