Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[RKMBrown]

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.

Did what for a living? Collect unemployment checks or write them? Show me, exactly, where I said unemployment only means receiving benefits. Did they not teach you how to read and write where you worked?

 

[TooTall]

So that justifies the Right lying about the true cost of Bush's war on terror.

are you claiming the CBO and the GAO are lying with their figures?
Earlier I posted Bill Clinton's agreement with us going into iraq. Want me to post that again? Want me to post those other countries that had intelligence that agreed with ours and joined us? Want me to post the names of all the Dems that also voted for us to go into Iraq? If not, then quit the bull of always blaming Bush.

Even if everyone was deceived it doesn't mean it was a good idea. Fact is there were no WMD's. Iraq had nothing to do with any terror attacks on us. He probably would have stomped out any terrorists as they might challenge his rule. Heck if Saddam was still around I don't think he'd let Iran get nukes so we wouldn't have to worry about that either.

Are you calling the Saddam Hussein that used poison gas on his own people a good guy? You must like the leader of Syria as well.

 

[kaz]

Are you calling the Saddam Hussein that used poison gas on his own people a good guy? You must like the leader of Syria as well.

Liberal logic: Hussein using WMDs doesn't prove he had them.

However, that WMDs were used in Syria proved Assad used them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

If I were in kindergarten, bfgrn, I'd ask to be assaulted with meaningless infographics and other minutia. It's simple math. Bush spent $5.2 trillion in 8 years, Obama has spent $6.4 in 5 years. Obama is set to spend double that of what Bush did when he leaves office. Liberals like you have no deductive reasoning skills whatsoever.

 

[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.

Did what for a living? Collect unemployment checks or write them? Show me, exactly, where I said unemployment only means receiving benefits. Did they not teach you how to read and write where you worked?

Pretty much every post in this thread you've claimed that "unemployed" are paid to remain unemployed and that the government no longer counts them. Note that the question is what the government classifies as unemployed and you certainly seem to be saying they only count those receiving benefits. If you're not claiming that, then you'll have to explain why those no longer receiving benefits are no longer counted even if they're still looking.

 

[kaz]

Pretty much every post in this thread you've claimed that "unemployed" are paid to remain unemployed and that the government no longer counts them. Note that the question is what the government classifies as unemployed and you certainly seem to be saying they only count those receiving benefits. If you're not claiming that, then you'll have to explain why those no longer receiving benefits are no longer counted even if they're still looking.

A simple Google search would answer your question. The government does sampling, but they only count people who say they are actively looking for work. However, they do not count underemployed or people who want a job and have given up.

So you're correct they don't automatically stop counting you once you're on unemployment, but you're wrong if you think that the unemployment rate doesn't dramatically under count the unemployed.

 

[pinqy]

Pretty much every post in this thread you've claimed that "unemployed" are paid to remain unemployed and that the government no longer counts them. Note that the question is what the government classifies as unemployed and you certainly seem to be saying they only count those receiving benefits. If you're not claiming that, then you'll have to explain why those no longer receiving benefits are no longer counted even if they're still looking.

A simple Google search would answer your question. The government does sampling, but they only count people who say they are actively looking for work. However, they do not count underemployed or people who want a job and have given up.

So you're correct they don't automatically stop counting you once you're on unemployment, but you're wrong if you think that the unemployment rate doesn't dramatically under count the unemployed.

I used to work at BLS and taught methodology regularly. I know what's done, I was questioning what's his name's bizarre claims.

And the rate does not undercount. Unemployed in the economic sense has always meant trying to work. Those not looking are not competing for jobs and so have no effect on the job market.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They'll keep trotting out the same phony graph until the end of time because just like FDR's "Greatness" all they can do is lie

 

[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?

If I were in kindergarten, bfgrn, I'd ask to be assaulted with meaningless infographics and other minutia. It's simple math. Bush spent $5.2 trillion in 8 years, Obama has spent $6.4 in 5 years. Obama is set to spend double that of what Bush did when he leaves office. Liberals like you have no deductive reasoning skills whatsoever.

Translation: This is adult shit, way too complicated for the the simple right wing mind. You should be in kindergarten. That's a perfect place for simple minds.

 

[Bfgrn]

They'll keep trotting out the same phony graph until the end of time because just like FDR's "Greatness" all they can do is lie

The Myth of Obama's Big Spending

Obama has slashed one tax dollar for every dollar he’s spent on government programs.

The Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank founded in 2007 by Republicans Howard Baker and Bob Dole and Democrats Tom Daschle and George Mitchell

The Myth of Obama's Big Spending | Bipartisan Policy Center

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

What if Obama spent like Reagan?

If I were in kindergarten, bfgrn, I'd ask to be assaulted with meaningless infographics and other minutia. It's simple math. Bush spent $5.2 trillion in 8 years, Obama has spent $6.4 in 5 years. Obama is set to spend double that of what Bush did when he leaves office. Liberals like you have no deductive reasoning skills whatsoever.

Translation: This is adult shit, way too complicated for the the simple right wing mind. You should be in kindergarten. That's a perfect place for simple minds.

Adult shit would be stuff like acknowledging reality, which you liberals fail to do often. Oh yes, insulting my intelligence is very adult like, bfgrn. You had your argument smashed so easily and this is your retort? Aha!! Adult? Rofl.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Did what for a living? Collect unemployment checks or write them? Show me, exactly, where I said unemployment only means receiving benefits. Did they not teach you how to read and write where you worked?

More insults because you don’t want to face your own words?

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.

That statement claims that getting off unemployment (the paycheck) means that the government doe not consider you unemployed. That is false as pointed out over and over again. You have tried to qualify this statement by bringing in other tangential straw men like the fact that unemployment checks encourages people to stay unemployed or that many get jobs after they run out of unemployment BUT you have done so in a lame effort to avoid admitting that you were completely incorrect in this initial statement.

 

[FA_Q2]

Pretty much every post in this thread you've claimed that "unemployed" are paid to remain unemployed and that the government no longer counts them. Note that the question is what the government classifies as unemployed and you certainly seem to be saying they only count those receiving benefits. If you're not claiming that, then you'll have to explain why those no longer receiving benefits are no longer counted even if they're still looking.

A simple Google search would answer your question. The government does sampling, but they only count people who say they are actively looking for work. However, they do not count underemployed or people who want a job and have given up.

So you're correct they don't automatically stop counting you once you're on unemployment, but you're wrong if you think that the unemployment rate doesn't dramatically under count the unemployed.

That’s not true either. They count all those. The media usually not utilize those numbers because they use the U3 rate – something that the government does as well – but BLS actually takes several different levels into account. I know that you know this though so I don’t know why you left that out.

It is not a matter of them not counting those individuals; it is a matter of politicians using the numbers that suit them the most at that particular moment. Obama will use U3 whereas republicans blasting him will commonly bring out the U6 numbers.

 

[Hoffstra]

I hate Bush, but you can't blaim him for the massive increase in spending in FY2009..which was carried over into FY2010.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pretty much every post in this thread you've claimed that "unemployed" are paid to remain unemployed and that the government no longer counts them. Note that the question is what the government classifies as unemployed and you certainly seem to be saying they only count those receiving benefits. If you're not claiming that, then you'll have to explain why those no longer receiving benefits are no longer counted even if they're still looking.

A simple Google search would answer your question. The government does sampling, but they only count people who say they are actively looking for work. However, they do not count underemployed or people who want a job and have given up.

So you're correct they don't automatically stop counting you once you're on unemployment, but you're wrong if you think that the unemployment rate doesn't dramatically under count the unemployed.

That’s not true either. They count all those. The media usually not utilize those numbers because they use the U3 rate – something that the government does as well – but BLS actually takes several different levels into account. I know that you know this though so I don’t know why you left that out.

It is not a matter of them not counting those individuals; it is a matter of politicians using the numbers that suit them the most at that particular moment. Obama will use U3 whereas republicans blasting him will commonly bring out the U6 numbers.

What it all boils down to is what numbers are convenient to whom. The U6 is inconvenient for both, for which I mean the establishment in both parties.

 

[Bfgrn]

If I were in kindergarten, bfgrn, I'd ask to be assaulted with meaningless infographics and other minutia. It's simple math. Bush spent $5.2 trillion in 8 years, Obama has spent $6.4 in 5 years. Obama is set to spend double that of what Bush did when he leaves office. Liberals like you have no deductive reasoning skills whatsoever.

Translation: This is adult shit, way too complicated for the the simple right wing mind. You should be in kindergarten. That's a perfect place for simple minds.

Adult shit would be stuff like acknowledging reality, which you liberals fail to do often. Oh yes, insulting my intelligence is very adult like, bfgrn. You had your argument smashed so easily and this is your retort? Aha!! Adult? Rofl.

Let's recap shall we?

I present facts, you hail insults, and claim to have debunked those facts. Then you are incredulous when I agree you should be in kindergarten.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Translation: This is adult shit, way too complicated for the the simple right wing mind. You should be in kindergarten. That's a perfect place for simple minds.

Adult shit would be stuff like acknowledging reality, which you liberals fail to do often. Oh yes, insulting my intelligence is very adult like, bfgrn. You had your argument smashed so easily and this is your retort? Aha!! Adult? Rofl.

Let's recap shall we?

I present facts, you hail insults, and claim to have debunked those facts. Then you are incredulous when I agree you should be in kindergarten.

Lets review it blow by blow. You began insulting me the moment I trashed your argument. From then on out you you presented your version of facts with obscure charts and a comparison between Obama's spending and Reagan's, which ironically should mean that our economy is being fixed and our unemployed citizens are finding work. You then spewed something from a so called bipartisan review board that claimed Obama's big spending is mythical. On what planet did he not add $6.4 trillion to our national debt?

You spin facts, bfgrn, you don't tell them. Now, go back and sit in the circle with the rest of the kids, school isn't over yet for you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Adult shit would be stuff like acknowledging reality, which you liberals fail to do often. Oh yes, insulting my intelligence is very adult like, bfgrn. You had your argument smashed so easily and this is your retort? Aha!! Adult? Rofl.

Let's recap shall we?

I present facts, you hail insults, and claim to have debunked those facts. Then you are incredulous when I agree you should be in kindergarten.

Lets review it blow by blow. You began insulting me the moment I trashed your argument. From then on out you you presented your version of facts with obscure charts and a comparison between Obama's spending and Reagan's, which ironically should mean that our economy is being fixed and our unemployed citizens are finding work. You then spewed something from a so called bipartisan review board that claimed Obama's big spending is mythical. On what planet did he not add $6.4 trillion to our national debt?

You spin facts, bfgrn, you don't tell them. Now, go back and sit in the circle with the rest of the kids, school isn't over yet for you.

I am being serious...are you old enough to understand how the world works? Do you understand automatic outlays that have nothing to do with Obama or any of his policies? Do you understand that if Obama did NOTHING our debt would increase?? Do you understand when an economy goes into a deep recession, revenues lag way behind outlays? Do you understand that when you add 2 wars that were off the books for 8 years into the budget, it will be reflected in our debt???

But you want to pile everything Obama walked into on his shoulders.

Ignorance is bliss...

 

[Vox]

this hack wants us to believe that the GROWTH of spending not ACTUAL SPENDING is what matters

 

[Bfgrn]

this hack wants us to believe that the GROWTH of spending not ACTUAL SPENDING is what matters

Hello? Are there any adults in the room to help you??

Yes, spending is actual spending, but WHAT spending is Obama's policies and what spending is not his doing?

If your answer is ALL of it is Obama's fault, you are either a moron or a disingenuous partisan hack.