Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[RKMBrown]

Do liberals always suck at math?

Liberals suck at everything.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

First of all, at the end of Bush's last Fiscal Year the debt was $11.9 trillion up from $5.8 trillion when he started, that's $6.1 trillion in Bush spending.

Bush and GOP spending policies did not end the day he left office. First of all is the interest on the $11.9 trillion debt, that's over $1 trillion so far. Then you have Bush's 2 wars and military and medical costs connected to them. Then you have Bush's unfunded mandates like Medicare Part D. So very little of the debt is due to spending policies started by Obama.

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

First of all, at the end of Bush's last Fiscal Year the debt was $11.9 trillion up from $5.8 trillion when he started, that's $6.1 trillion in Bush spending.

Bush and GOP spending policies did not end the day he left office. First of all is the interest on the $11.9 trillion debt, that's over $1 trillion so far. Then you have Bush's 2 wars and military and medical costs connected to them. Then you have Bush's unfunded mandates like Medicare Part D. So very little of the debt is due to spending policies started by Obama.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

What if Obama spent like Reagan?

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Whatever. I give you facts and sources and all you have is hostility and idiocy. I am pretty much done with you RMK as you are little different than trying to debate RDean. Yes, that is the approximate quality of your arguments. Nice work, you have reached the mountain top of irrelevancy.

 

[pinqy]

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

Perhaps you should actually do research. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

 

[pinqy]

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

And all the people who are not eligible for benefits in the first place? BLS counts them in the official rate, but you wouldn't't

What's really fascinating is that you keep making the same assertion despite clear evidence to the contrary and you don't even try to show any evidence to support your claims. Explain how that works or is in any way honest. No you'll just post insults.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

First of all, at the end of Bush's last Fiscal Year the debt was $11.9 trillion up from $5.8 trillion when he started, that's $6.1 trillion in Bush spending.

Bush and GOP spending policies did not end the day he left office. First of all is the interest on the $11.9 trillion debt, that's over $1 trillion so far. Then you have Bush's 2 wars and military and medical costs connected to them. Then you have Bush's unfunded mandates like Medicare Part D. So very little of the debt is due to spending policies started by Obama.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Why would you use graphs that end in 2011 to show what President Obama has or hasn't spent? Did 2012 and now 2013 not happen? Or do you not want to show the true extent of the spending that's been done under this President?

I wonder what Moynihan would say about your obvious manipulation of "the facts"?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

First of all, at the end of Bush's last Fiscal Year the debt was $11.9 trillion up from $5.8 trillion when he started, that's $6.1 trillion in Bush spending.

Bush and GOP spending policies did not end the day he left office. First of all is the interest on the $11.9 trillion debt, that's over $1 trillion so far. Then you have Bush's 2 wars and military and medical costs connected to them. Then you have Bush's unfunded mandates like Medicare Part D. So very little of the debt is due to spending policies started by Obama.

You say that like over spending is a bad thing, does that mean you are in favor of cutting government spending or does that mean you want a bigger slice of my assets?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Whatever. I give you facts and sources and all you have is hostility and idiocy. I am pretty much done with you RMK as you are little different than trying to debate RDean. Yes, that is the approximate quality of your arguments. Nice work, you have reached the mountain top of irrelevancy.

Liar.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

First of all, at the end of Bush's last Fiscal Year the debt was $11.9 trillion up from $5.8 trillion when he started, that's $6.1 trillion in Bush spending.

Bush and GOP spending policies did not end the day he left office. First of all is the interest on the $11.9 trillion debt, that's over $1 trillion so far. Then you have Bush's 2 wars and military and medical costs connected to them. Then you have Bush's unfunded mandates like Medicare Part D. So very little of the debt is due to spending policies started by Obama.

You say that like over spending is a bad thing, does that mean you are in favor of cutting government spending or does that mean you want a bigger slice of my assets?

You're too stupid to have any assets!

 

[Lovebears65]

This is a prime example if you say it enough the sheep believe it .

 

[RKMBrown]

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

And all the people who are not eligible for benefits in the first place? BLS counts them in the official rate, but you wouldn't't

What's really fascinating is that you keep making the same assertion despite clear evidence to the contrary and you don't even try to show any evidence to support your claims. Explain how that works or is in any way honest. No you'll just post insults.

Nah. It just means that you don't know how to read.

The following sentence "The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits." Does not mean people that are on unemployment insurance are not counted in the unemployment rate.

 

[pinqy]

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

And all the people who are not eligible for benefits in the first place? BLS counts them in the official rate, but you wouldn't't

What's really fascinating is that you keep making the same assertion despite clear evidence to the contrary and you don't even try to show any evidence to support your claims. Explain how that works or is in any way honest. No you'll just post insults.

Nah. It just means that you don't know how to read.

The following sentence "The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits." Does not mean people that are on unemployment insurance are not counted in the unemployment rate.

No one said they're not. But they're not counted BECAUSE of receiving benefits. Whether or not someone is, was, or ever has been eligible for, applied for, or received benefits has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they're classified as unemployed.

The survey uses the week that contains the 12th as the reference week. If someone did not work that week, but wanted to, could have, and looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, then s/he is unemployed. Benefits are irrelevant

 

[Bfgrn]

First of all, at the end of Bush's last Fiscal Year the debt was $11.9 trillion up from $5.8 trillion when he started, that's $6.1 trillion in Bush spending.

Bush and GOP spending policies did not end the day he left office. First of all is the interest on the $11.9 trillion debt, that's over $1 trillion so far. Then you have Bush's 2 wars and military and medical costs connected to them. Then you have Bush's unfunded mandates like Medicare Part D. So very little of the debt is due to spending policies started by Obama.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

What if Obama spent like Reagan?

Why would you use graphs that end in 2011 to show what President Obama has or hasn't spent? Did 2012 and now 2013 not happen? Or do you not want to show the true extent of the spending that's been done under this President?

I wonder what Moynihan would say about your obvious manipulation of "the facts"?

Then here is what you do...provide what programs and policies Obama has spent money on. Because if you are going to put them on one man, you must be able to give us that information.

 

[RKMBrown]

And all the people who are not eligible for benefits in the first place? BLS counts them in the official rate, but you wouldn't't

What's really fascinating is that you keep making the same assertion despite clear evidence to the contrary and you don't even try to show any evidence to support your claims. Explain how that works or is in any way honest. No you'll just post insults.

Nah. It just means that you don't know how to read.

The following sentence "The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits." Does not mean people that are on unemployment insurance are not counted in the unemployment rate.

No one said they're not. But they're not counted BECAUSE of receiving benefits. Whether or not someone is, was, or ever has been eligible for, applied for, or received benefits has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they're classified as unemployed.

The survey uses the week that contains the 12th as the reference week. If someone did not work that week, but wanted to, could have, and looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, then s/he is unemployed. Benefits are irrelevant

You are very very very very confused.

People stay on unemployment BECAUSE we pay them to STAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT. Many of them only go back to work AFTER their unemployment benefits run out.

 

[saintaugusto]

A few questions and points:

1. What is the exact source of this chart?

2. Do you realize that these are percentages of different base amounts and as the result are significantly different in absolute numbers?

3. Didn't Obama criticize the spending under Bush II? So why have even 1% of spending growth and not negative growth, which is cuts, cuts, cuts?

 

[pinqy]

Nah. It just means that you don't know how to read.

The following sentence "The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits." Does not mean people that are on unemployment insurance are not counted in the unemployment rate.

No one said they're not. But they're not counted BECAUSE of receiving benefits. Whether or not someone is, was, or ever has been eligible for, applied for, or received benefits has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they're classified as unemployed.

The survey uses the week that contains the 12th as the reference week. If someone did not work that week, but wanted to, could have, and looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, then s/he is unemployed. Benefits are irrelevant

You are very very very very confused.

People stay on unemployment BECAUSE we pay them to STAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT. Many of them only go back to work AFTER their unemployment benefits run out.

Ummm, no, I did this for a living. You seem to be confused. Let's try one more time....Unemployment does NOT only mean receiving benefits. The government classifies as unemployed ANYONE 16 or older not in prison or an institution who is not working but is looking for work. Most are not receiving any Unemployment insurance benefits so it's odd to claim we're paying them.

 

[saintaugusto]

No one said they're not. But they're not counted BECAUSE of receiving benefits. Whether or not someone is, was, or ever has been eligible for, applied for, or received benefits has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they're classified as unemployed.

The survey uses the week that contains the 12th as the reference week. If someone did not work that week, but wanted to, could have, and looked for work in the 4 weeks ending with the reference week, then s/he is unemployed. Benefits are irrelevant

You are very very very very confused.

People stay on unemployment BECAUSE we pay them to STAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT. Many of them only go back to work AFTER their unemployment benefits run out.

Ummm, no, I did this for a living. You seem to be confused. Let's try one more time....Unemployment does NOT only mean receiving benefits. The government classifies as unemployed ANYONE 16 or older not in prison or an institution who is not working but is looking for work. Most are not receiving any Unemployment insurance benefits so it's odd to claim we're paying them.

And how does the government know who is looking for work?

 

[pinqy]

You are very very very very confused.

People stay on unemployment BECAUSE we pay them to STAY ON UNEMPLOYMENT. Many of them only go back to work AFTER their unemployment benefits run out.

Ummm, no, I did this for a living. You seem to be confused. Let's try one more time....Unemployment does NOT only mean receiving benefits. The government classifies as unemployed ANYONE 16 or older not in prison or an institution who is not working but is looking for work. Most are not receiving any Unemployment insurance benefits so it's odd to claim we're paying them.

And how does the government know who is looking for work?

That has as already been explained. Census interviews 60,0000 household every month and asks. Yes that's a large enough sample for a national survey.

 

[kaz]

Do you know how long it took for people to realize the Reagan more than doubled Carter's spending?

Obama has spent less than Bush, and his deficits are smaller.

FOX News is raising a generation of Republicans on propaganda. .

I believe the disconnection between liberalism and reality is now complete