Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[Bfgrn]

you gotta wonder, where'd the money go? And that goes for both parties. I mean, sure, in a recession spending goes up. But the recession's over. We've brought the folks back from the Iraq debacle.

Obamacare aside, because at least you know it's there and the deficit effect can be measured in the future, but we're SPENDING TWICE AS MUCH NOW AS WHEN SLICK LEFT OFFICE!

We've become an entitlement society, Ben. Foodstamp use is through the roof. People are on unemployment for years. Disability claims have exploded. Now we'll be adding yet another unfunded entitlement program in ObamaCare. If you think we're spending a lot now...just wait until ten years from now when the real costs of this health care "reform" become apparent. We're either going to see huge tax increases to cover this stuff or we'll see massive additions to the national debt and subsequent downgrades of our credit rating.

Disability claims are rising due to demographics. But if you need to blame a president, then Ronald Raygun is your man.

Social Security Disability Enrollment Rising Due To Demographic Trends: CBO

CBO - Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf

"The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, found that the biggest jumps in the disabled population came from aging Baby Boomers. From 1996 through 2009 -- "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent," the report said.

Meanwhile, the share of benefits going to younger workers -- between the ages of 25 to 44 -- fell from 31 percent to 22 percent.

"Baby boomers' aging would have boosted enrollment in the DI program even if no other factors had changed," the report said.

Add to that the fact that more women have entered the workforce since 1970, boosting the working population and creating a larger pool of people who can become disabled.

A change in the law during the Reagan administration that allowed more people with mental disabilities and musculoskeletal problems to qualify also increased the number of people on disability. In 1990, such people accounted for 38 percent of workers in the SSDI program. In 2010, the number had risen to 54 percent."

 

[edthecynic]

We've become an entitlement society, Ben. Foodstamp use is through the roof. People are on unemployment for years. Disability claims have exploded. Now we'll be adding yet another unfunded entitlement program in ObamaCare. If you think we're spending a lot now...just wait until ten years from now when the real costs of this health care "reform" become apparent. We're either going to see huge tax increases to cover this stuff or we'll see massive additions to the national debt and subsequent downgrades of our credit rating.

Typical Right-wing exaggerations, Even with the maximum number of extensions UI was always less than 2 years and in most states now it is under 1 year, and disability rates are increasing about the same as they were under Bush due to an aging Boomer workforce.

Nearly two years is close enough to two years to call it two years. Additionally, they can continue to collect other types of benefits even after UI runs out.

I've never met a person that was sooooo disabled they had to be paid to do nothing. Your idea of disabled and mine are probably in two completely different realms.

No state gives "nearly 2 years" of UI today. 2 states give 73 weeks, which is less than a year and a half and less than half does not round up to the next whole.

And neither you nor I define who is disabled and what work they can do, the law does. And according to those laws the disabled are growing at the same pace as they grew during the Bush Regime.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Typical Right-wing exaggerations, Even with the maximum number of extensions UI was always less than 2 years and in most states now it is under 1 year, and disability rates are increasing about the same as they were under Bush due to an aging Boomer workforce.

Nearly two years is close enough to two years to call it two years. Additionally, they can continue to collect other types of benefits even after UI runs out.

I've never met a person that was sooooo disabled they had to be paid to do nothing. Your idea of disabled and mine are probably in two completely different realms.

No state gives "nearly 2 years" of UI today. 2 states give 73 weeks, which is less than a year and a half and less than half does not round up to the next whole.

And neither you nor I define who is disabled and what work they can do, the law does. And according to those laws the disabled are growing at the same pace as they grew during the Bush Regime.

So what are you saying? That everything is just fine and Obama is responsible for it?
Amazing how you libs will take credit for anything positive yet will accept none of the responsibility for the negative.
Look, the economy has been at a virtual standstill for 5 years. Not one single quarter had annualized GDP growth of over 1.5%. Economists consider that flat.
You people bitch and moan that business is sitting on cash and not hiring. Then you whip out stupid maps and other nonsense claiming the job market is doing well.
Once again a flaming lib shows they are an Obama sycophant.
You worship the guy. Ya know what, that's creepy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

2011 spending = $3.603 trillion
2012 spending = $3.537 trillion

That was a decrease.

2013 like 2011 & 2012 is only a projected spending increase. We came in under budget in 2011 & 2012 & will likely do it again in 2013.

How in the hell could you come in under budget when you didn't have a budget to start with?

How about some real numbers?

2008: $2.98 trillion

2009: $3.27 trillion

2010: $3.46 trillion

2011: $3.60 trillion

2012: $3.65 trillion

2013: $3.72 trillion (projected)

And this is only what congress authorized him to spend, far below what he desired to spend.

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama - The Washington Post

News papers are in no way "real numbers" or "facts", especially when they use 18 month old "estimates" & "projections" instead of actual real time numbers.

FACT: Government spending is actually going down for the first time in over 66 years!

Real time?....So that you've posted what you claim to be 'real time' is no longer.
Cut the crap.
The national debt/ federal deficit thing is a ruse to confuse people.
The federal deficit is what matters. This number represents the amount the federal government spends over what it takes in revenue.
The annual deficit for any year in the Obama admin has been $5 trillion.
With projected spending already in place for the next now 9 years, is well in excess of the total net worth of all assets in the US.
Meaning, if the federal government spends every dollar it intends, the US is essentially broke.
Now, whether the government spends these crazy amounts of money or not is immaterial. The fact is business and private citizens are concerned the economy will never recover, their homes will not regain the equity lost over the last ten years, they are fearful they or their soon to graduate from college children will be able to find gainful employment. They worry about whether or not to make their next large purchase because they don't know they will have a job the following week..
As long as there is is this disconnect between the people and what goes on inside the Beltway, none of the cheerleading for Obama or the spin from the White House press room or the main stream media is going to matter. If people think things are not going well, then they aren't.
And as we have seen with the closing years of every two term administration, the only thing that is going to wake up the country is a regime change. That means, new guy from the other party in the White House.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fluctuations of course Dave, but Reagan busted the budget. It's not debatable. And, I'm not an obama fan.

Historical Tables | The White House

Please define. "Busted the budget"....Go into detail.
Don't just spit out raw numbers and post "here, there was less spending. Over here there was more spending. Therefore Reagan busted the budget."

 

[thereisnospoon]

I get pretty pissed of when liberals argue both sides of an issue and expect to get away with it.
With regard to budget increase reductions( there are no CUTS...Never have been) the libs scream their heads off. They claim there will be carnage in the streets. Old people eating cat food.
The President had the nerve to go on national tv and state " Social Security checks will not be mailed. People in the military will not be paid".....Blah blah blah....This is typical of any reduction or even any scrutiny of federal spending. In fact there are liberals on this board who actually believe that economic prosperity comes from federal spending.
Then these same libs post charts and graphs indicating how Obama is spending less. Or how the current government is reducing deficits.
So now libs, what's your poison? Deficit reduction or increased federal spending?

 

[Edgetho]

I get pretty pissed of when liberals argue both sides of an issue and expect to get away with it.
With regard to budget increase reductions( there are no CUTS...Never have been) the libs scream their heads off. They claim there will be carnage in the streets. Old people eating cat food.
The President had the nerve to go on national tv and state " Social Security checks will not be mailed. People in the military will not be paid".....Blah blah blah....This is typical of any reduction or even any scrutiny of federal spending. In fact there are liberals on this board who actually believe that economic prosperity comes from federal spending.
Then these same libs post charts and graphs indicating how Obama is spending less. Or how the current government is reducing deficits.
So now libs, what's your poison? Deficit reduction or increased federal spending?

dimocraps lie. It's what they do.

What they're doing is posting a chart showing INCREASES in federal spending. More "Baseline Budgeting" bullshit.

That's like you saying that because you spent $50k on home improvements last year and expect to spend only $10k this year, that you saved $40k. It's fantasy.

Wonder how Truman would look compared to FDR? That little WWII thingie, remember?

Bush faced a Financial Crisis the likes of which had not seen since 1929.

Difference? He saved the World from another Great Depression through the wise use of Federal Funds with TARP and the propping up of Companies that needed propping up.

And that money he spent? The money he loaned to all those Financial Institutions?

IT'S ALL BEEN PAID BACK!!!!!!! WITH INTEREST!!!!!!

And guess when it got paid back? Under the the scumbag-in-chief's regime.

Where did all that money go? You know, the money Bush lent out and that the Banks and AIG paid back?

Where is it?

Spent.

The scumbag-in-chief spent every last penny of it on his pals in the Unions and in Municipal and State Pension Funds for UNION workers and by hiring TENS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW FEDERAL WORKERS and by giving it away in the form of food stamps and FUNemployment.

dimocraps lie. It's what they do

 

[RKMBrown]

04/09/2013 - National Debt to the Penny = $16,808,274,414,207.16

08/27/2013 - National Debt to the Penny = $16,738,408,908,240.13

That is a $69,865,505,967.03 reduction in national debt as of today.

It's also a boldface lie. Obama has been raiding federal pension funding that will have to be remunerated with future taxes and/or loans.

You can thank the Tea Party Obstructionists for the halting of the expansion of federal government. But we need to make a major correction to ameliorate the damages done by the massive spending increases enacted by the democrats in the first two years of Obama's reign of terror. Not to mention the increases Bush did.

Do you have a split personality? So are you now saying spending is decreasing & it's because of the Tea Party?

No I don't have a split personality. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Where did I say spending is decreasing because of the Tea Party?

 

[RKMBrown]

Typical Right-wing exaggerations, Even with the maximum number of extensions UI was always less than 2 years and in most states now it is under 1 year, and disability rates are increasing about the same as they were under Bush due to an aging Boomer workforce.

Nearly two years is close enough to two years to call it two years. Additionally, they can continue to collect other types of benefits even after UI runs out.

I've never met a person that was sooooo disabled they had to be paid to do nothing. Your idea of disabled and mine are probably in two completely different realms.

No state gives "nearly 2 years" of UI today. 2 states give 73 weeks, which is less than a year and a half and less than half does not round up to the next whole.

And neither you nor I define who is disabled and what work they can do, the law does. And according to those laws the disabled are growing at the same pace as they grew during the Bush Regime.

>>> No state gives "nearly 2 years" of UI today.
Correct. The discussion was over the tyrannical term of this jerk of a president. The Tea Party guys were successful in finally getting the Obama idiots to cut the length of UI back a bit by refusing to give Obama another massive new spending bill, but it's still not down to where it should be, 3months. It was never meant to be more than a few months. Turning it from a short 3 month thing to 6, 9, 12, 15, ... months is ridiculous, asinine, wasteful.

>> the disabled are growing at the same pace as they grew during the Bush Regime
So what if it was screwed up under Bush as well? Didn't the dumbocrats run congress at some point in Bush's regime? Do you have a link supporting this? Either way, if the percentage of disabled are "growing" as a percentage of the population, then what the hell is wrong with this country that we are disabling people in their working years? WTF is going on that is making people more likely to be disabled? Has the average age of workers changed that much? Is it the wars? Or is the problem that the people themselves are trying harder and harder to get onto welfare? When do we stop paying people to be disabled? Why should a disabled person not be allowed to work?

 

[edthecynic]

Nearly two years is close enough to two years to call it two years. Additionally, they can continue to collect other types of benefits even after UI runs out.

I've never met a person that was sooooo disabled they had to be paid to do nothing. Your idea of disabled and mine are probably in two completely different realms.

No state gives "nearly 2 years" of UI today. 2 states give 73 weeks, which is less than a year and a half and less than half does not round up to the next whole.

And neither you nor I define who is disabled and what work they can do, the law does. And according to those laws the disabled are growing at the same pace as they grew during the Bush Regime.

>>> No state gives "nearly 2 years" of UI today.
Correct. The discussion was over the tyrannical term of this jerk of a president. The Tea Party guys were successful in finally getting the Obama idiots to cut the length of UI back a bit by refusing to give Obama another massive new spending bill, but it's still not down to where it should be, 3months. It was never meant to be more than a few months. Turning it from a short 3 month thing to 6, 9, 12, 15, ... months is ridiculous, asinine, wasteful.

>> the disabled are growing at the same pace as they grew during the Bush Regime
So what if it was screwed up under Bush as well? Didn't the dumbocrats run congress at some point in Bush's regime? Do you have a link supporting this? Either way, if the percentage of disabled are "growing" as a percentage of the population, then what the hell is wrong with this country that we are disabling people in their working years? WTF is going on that is making people more likely to be disabled? Has the average age of workers changed that much? Is it the wars? Or is the problem that the people themselves are trying harder and harder to get onto welfare? When do we stop paying people to be disabled? Why should a disabled person not be allowed to work?

First of all, the poster I answered said the people "ARE" collecting UI for YEARS, "are" means NOW, "WERE" would mean in the past. And the Tea Bag Brotherhood had nothing to do with it, the cuts are automatic, as well as the increases, as the UE rate comes down or goes up. But thank you for proving your ignorance.

And disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population and have nothing to do with who is president. Let's see what happens to you in your senior years, of course you will probably claim you will never physically age.

 

[RKMBrown]

First of all, the poster I answered said the people "ARE" collecting UI for YEARS, "are" means NOW, "WERE" would mean in the past. And the Tea Bag Brotherhood had nothing to do with it, the cuts are automatic, as well as the increases, as the UE rate comes down or goes up. But thank you for proving your ignorance.

And disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population and have nothing to do with who is president. Let's see what happens to you in your senior years, of course you will probably claim you will never physically age.

I have a sister in law that collected UI for nearly two years in FL. I understand it just ran out this month. Running out "this" month is fairly close to frigging current. But thank you for proving YOUR ignorance.

>>> "tea bag"
Really? A violent sexual reference? What are you, twelve?

>> UE rate
NO. The UE rate is directly tied to the length of time that we PAY PEOPLE TO BE UNEMPLOYED. When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

>>> disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population

NO. Disability claims are due to people filing and getting approval for disability claims. Getting older is not a disability, it's a part of life.

Obama and his scumbag minions removed the welfare reforms enacted under Clinton. That has had a direct effect on the number of people collecting welfare. Obama's administration is actually ADVERTISING FOR more people to join the ranks of welfare recipients.

 

[Samson]

You don't really expect anybody to believe that bullshit, do you?

Wasn't Obama elected in 2008?

Why isn't any 2002 "re-assigned" to Clinton?

 

[FA_Q2]

First of all, the poster I answered said the people "ARE" collecting UI for YEARS, "are" means NOW, "WERE" would mean in the past. And the Tea Bag Brotherhood had nothing to do with it, the cuts are automatic, as well as the increases, as the UE rate comes down or goes up. But thank you for proving your ignorance.

And disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population and have nothing to do with who is president. Let's see what happens to you in your senior years, of course you will probably claim you will never physically age.

I have a sister in law that collected UI for nearly two years in FL. I understand it just ran out this month. Running out "this" month is fairly close to frigging current. But thank you for proving YOUR ignorance.

>>> "tea bag"
Really? A violent sexual reference? What are you, twelve?

>> UE rate
NO. The UE rate is directly tied to the length of time that we PAY PEOPLE TO BE UNEMPLOYED. When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

>>> disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population

NO. Disability claims are due to people filing and getting approval for disability claims. Getting older is not a disability, it's a part of life.

Obama and his scumbag minions removed the welfare reforms enacted under Clinton. That has had a direct effect on the number of people collecting welfare. Obama's administration is actually ADVERTISING FOR more people to join the ranks of welfare recipients.

This is an often repeated misunderstanding on these boards. That is false. The UE rate is completely independent of unemployment collections. It is surveyed. Right from the horse’s mouth:

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the Government uses the number of persons filing claims for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under State or Federal Government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.

How the rate is actually calculated:

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project.

The pool used:

There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State. (For a detailed explanation of CPS sampling methodology, see Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods.)

Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed more than 4 consecutive months. This practice avoids placing too heavy a burden on the households selected for the sample. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months, and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good. This procedure results in approximately 75 percent of the sample remaining the same from month to month and 50 percent from year to year.

Clearly, the UE rate has nothing to do with unemployment payments.

 

[RKMBrown]

First of all, the poster I answered said the people "ARE" collecting UI for YEARS, "are" means NOW, "WERE" would mean in the past. And the Tea Bag Brotherhood had nothing to do with it, the cuts are automatic, as well as the increases, as the UE rate comes down or goes up. But thank you for proving your ignorance.

And disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population and have nothing to do with who is president. Let's see what happens to you in your senior years, of course you will probably claim you will never physically age.

I have a sister in law that collected UI for nearly two years in FL. I understand it just ran out this month. Running out "this" month is fairly close to frigging current. But thank you for proving YOUR ignorance.

>>> "tea bag"
Really? A violent sexual reference? What are you, twelve?

>> UE rate
NO. The UE rate is directly tied to the length of time that we PAY PEOPLE TO BE UNEMPLOYED. When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

>>> disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population

NO. Disability claims are due to people filing and getting approval for disability claims. Getting older is not a disability, it's a part of life.

Obama and his scumbag minions removed the welfare reforms enacted under Clinton. That has had a direct effect on the number of people collecting welfare. Obama's administration is actually ADVERTISING FOR more people to join the ranks of welfare recipients.

This is an often repeated misunderstanding on these boards. That is false. The UE rate is completely independent of unemployment collections. It is surveyed. Right from the horse’s mouth:

How the Government Measures Unemployment


How the rate is actually calculated:

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration project.

The pool used:

There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State. (For a detailed explanation of CPS sampling methodology, see Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods.)

Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed more than 4 consecutive months. This practice avoids placing too heavy a burden on the households selected for the sample. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months, and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good. This procedure results in approximately 75 percent of the sample remaining the same from month to month and 50 percent from year to year.

Clearly, the UE rate has nothing to do with unemployment payments.

What are you on?

What happens when they stop collecting UE? They get jobs, get on disability, or quit looking. What is happening when they are collecting UE? they are counted in the UE rate. Are they counted in the UE Rate yes or no? Yes. What does it matter it they count on a survey of a random 60k or use the actual numbers? NOTHING

 

[edthecynic]

First of all, the poster I answered said the people "ARE" collecting UI for YEARS, "are" means NOW, "WERE" would mean in the past. And the Tea Bag Brotherhood had nothing to do with it, the cuts are automatic, as well as the increases, as the UE rate comes down or goes up. But thank you for proving your ignorance.

And disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population and have nothing to do with who is president. Let's see what happens to you in your senior years, of course you will probably claim you will never physically age.

I have a sister in law that collected UI for nearly two years in FL. I understand it just ran out this month. Running out "this" month is fairly close to frigging current. But thank you for proving YOUR ignorance.

>>> "tea bag"
Really? A violent sexual reference? What are you, twelve?

>> UE rate
NO. The UE rate is directly tied to the length of time that we PAY PEOPLE TO BE UNEMPLOYED. When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

>>> disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population

NO. Disability claims are due to people filing and getting approval for disability claims. Getting older is not a disability, it's a part of life.

Obama and his scumbag minions removed the welfare reforms enacted under Clinton. That has had a direct effect on the number of people collecting welfare. Obama's administration is actually ADVERTISING FOR more people to join the ranks of welfare recipients.

What an idiot!!!

A tea bag is a bag of tea you dip in hot water to make a tea drink.
You have it confused with your favorite sexual practice of teabagging.

Whether you are collecting UI or not has absolutely nothing to do with the UE rate. Whether you are looking for work or not does.

You don't want to believe this, but as you age your body breaks down. That is why you don't see 90 year old professional athletes.

It was Bush who started to advertise for people to apply for food stamps in 2004.

Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong about everything.

 

[RKMBrown]

First of all, the poster I answered said the people "ARE" collecting UI for YEARS, "are" means NOW, "WERE" would mean in the past. And the Tea Bag Brotherhood had nothing to do with it, the cuts are automatic, as well as the increases, as the UE rate comes down or goes up. But thank you for proving your ignorance.

And disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population and have nothing to do with who is president. Let's see what happens to you in your senior years, of course you will probably claim you will never physically age.

I have a sister in law that collected UI for nearly two years in FL. I understand it just ran out this month. Running out "this" month is fairly close to frigging current. But thank you for proving YOUR ignorance.

>>> "tea bag"
Really? A violent sexual reference? What are you, twelve?

>> UE rate
NO. The UE rate is directly tied to the length of time that we PAY PEOPLE TO BE UNEMPLOYED. When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

>>> disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population

NO. Disability claims are due to people filing and getting approval for disability claims. Getting older is not a disability, it's a part of life.

Obama and his scumbag minions removed the welfare reforms enacted under Clinton. That has had a direct effect on the number of people collecting welfare. Obama's administration is actually ADVERTISING FOR more people to join the ranks of welfare recipients.

What an idiot!!!

A tea bag is a bag of tea you dip in hot water to make a tea drink.
You have it confused with your favorite sexual practice of teabagging.

Whether you are collecting UI or not has absolutely nothing to do with the UE rate. Whether you are looking for work or not does.

You don't want to believe this, but as you age your body breaks down. That is why you don't see 90 year old professional athletes.

It was Bush who started to advertise for people to apply for food stamps in 2004.

Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong about everything.

POS liar.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have a sister in law that collected UI for nearly two years in FL. I understand it just ran out this month. Running out "this" month is fairly close to frigging current. But thank you for proving YOUR ignorance.

>>> "tea bag"
Really? A violent sexual reference? What are you, twelve?

>> UE rate
NO. The UE rate is directly tied to the length of time that we PAY PEOPLE TO BE UNEMPLOYED. When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

>>> disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population

NO. Disability claims are due to people filing and getting approval for disability claims. Getting older is not a disability, it's a part of life.

Obama and his scumbag minions removed the welfare reforms enacted under Clinton. That has had a direct effect on the number of people collecting welfare. Obama's administration is actually ADVERTISING FOR more people to join the ranks of welfare recipients.

This is an often repeated misunderstanding on these boards. That is false. The UE rate is completely independent of unemployment collections. It is surveyed. Right from the horse’s mouth:

How the Government Measures Unemployment


How the rate is actually calculated:



The pool used:

There are about 60,000 households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and county-equivalent cities in the country first are grouped into 2,025 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample consisting of 824 of these geographic areas to represent each State and the District of Columbia. The sample is a State-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each State. (For a detailed explanation of CPS sampling methodology, see Chapter 1, of the BLS Handbook of Methods.)

Every month, one-fourth of the households in the sample are changed, so that no household is interviewed more than 4 consecutive months. This practice avoids placing too heavy a burden on the households selected for the sample. After a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, it leaves the sample for 8 months, and then is again interviewed for the same 4 calendar months a year later, before leaving the sample for good. This procedure results in approximately 75 percent of the sample remaining the same from month to month and 50 percent from year to year.

Clearly, the UE rate has nothing to do with unemployment payments.

What are you on?

What happens when they stop collecting UE? They get jobs, get on disability, or quit looking. What is happening when they are collecting UE? they are counted in the UE rate. Are they counted in the UE Rate yes or no? Yes. What does it matter it they count on a survey of a random 60k or use the actual numbers? NOTHING

I am on reality RMK, try it.

Those are two COMPLETELY different claims. IF you want to make the case that UE raises the unemployment rate by incentivizing staying unemployed then, yes, that is correct. That is not what you stated though. You stated this:

‘When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate.’

Which is unequivocally false. If your unemployment runs out and you are still unemployed you STOP getting unemployment but you are STILL counted as unemployed in the UE rate. That is why your statement is completely false.

There is an argument that UE insurance causes higher unemployment and that is true BUT that does not mean that the unemployment rate takes UE into consideration or stops counting you as unemployed if you cease collecting benefits (the very definition of coming off unemployment).

So, got any more condescending tone because you got something incorrect?

 

[RKMBrown]

This is an often repeated misunderstanding on these boards. That is false. The UE rate is completely independent of unemployment collections. It is surveyed. Right from the horse’s mouth:

How the Government Measures Unemployment


How the rate is actually calculated:



The pool used:



Clearly, the UE rate has nothing to do with unemployment payments.

What are you on?

What happens when they stop collecting UE? They get jobs, get on disability, or quit looking. What is happening when they are collecting UE? they are counted in the UE rate. Are they counted in the UE Rate yes or no? Yes. What does it matter it they count on a survey of a random 60k or use the actual numbers? NOTHING

I am on reality RMK, try it.

Those are two COMPLETELY different claims. IF you want to make the case that UE raises the unemployment rate by incentivizing staying unemployed then, yes, that is correct. That is not what you stated though. You stated this:

‘When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate.’

Which is unequivocally false. If your unemployment runs out and you are still unemployed you STOP getting unemployment but you are STILL counted as unemployed in the UE rate. That is why your statement is completely false.

There is an argument that UE insurance causes higher unemployment and that is true BUT that does not mean that the unemployment rate takes UE into consideration or stops counting you as unemployed if you cease collecting benefits (the very definition of coming off unemployment).

So, got any more condescending tone because you got something incorrect?

What a retard. Unemployment rate does not take Unemployment into consideration. ROFL yeah unemployment has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. lol

 

[edthecynic]

I have a sister in law that collected UI for nearly two years in FL. I understand it just ran out this month. Running out "this" month is fairly close to frigging current. But thank you for proving YOUR ignorance.

>>> "tea bag"
Really? A violent sexual reference? What are you, twelve?

>> UE rate
NO. The UE rate is directly tied to the length of time that we PAY PEOPLE TO BE UNEMPLOYED. When they come off unemployment they are no longer considered unemployed by the government UE rate. You are confusing real unemployment with the government measure called the unemployment rate.

>>> disability claims are due to an aging Boomer population

NO. Disability claims are due to people filing and getting approval for disability claims. Getting older is not a disability, it's a part of life.

Obama and his scumbag minions removed the welfare reforms enacted under Clinton. That has had a direct effect on the number of people collecting welfare. Obama's administration is actually ADVERTISING FOR more people to join the ranks of welfare recipients.

What an idiot!!!

A tea bag is a bag of tea you dip in hot water to make a tea drink.
You have it confused with your favorite sexual practice of teabagging.

Whether you are collecting UI or not has absolutely nothing to do with the UE rate. Whether you are looking for work or not does.

You don't want to believe this, but as you age your body breaks down. That is why you don't see 90 year old professional athletes.

It was Bush who started to advertise for people to apply for food stamps in 2004.

Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong about everything.

POS liar.

You can't handle the truth!

 

[TemplarKormac]

What an idiot!!!

A tea bag is a bag of tea you dip in hot water to make a tea drink.
You have it confused with your favorite sexual practice of teabagging.

Whether you are collecting UI or not has absolutely nothing to do with the UE rate. Whether you are looking for work or not does.

You don't want to believe this, but as you age your body breaks down. That is why you don't see 90 year old professional athletes.

It was Bush who started to advertise for people to apply for food stamps in 2004.

Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong about everything.

POS liar.

You can't handle the truth!

You don't even know what the truth is. I mean, to be blunt, you wouldn't know the truth if it took you from behind.

When under Obama you accrue $6.4 trillion in new debt in just five years, you can tell immediately that spending is not way down at all. He has outspent his predecessor by $1.2 trillion!

Do liberals always suck at math?