Once again, spending is way down under a Democratic President

[Bfgrn]

Nope, you are the one who is wrong. When a president signs a budget bill he has the ability to stop or reduce spending in accordance with the provisions of the bill.

That is exactly why no house-passed budget bill has been allowed to reach the floor of the senate by Reid. the dems and obama are afraid that one might pass and then obozo would have to either sign it or veto it and admit that he does not give a shit about deficit spending and our ever increasing national debt.

One of obama's primary goals was to destroy the US economy, and he has almost accomplished that.

Econ 101 shit for shit for brains right wing turds...

Definition of Mandatory Spending

What is "mandatory spending"? What is the definition of the term "mandatory spending"?

"Mandatory spending" is government expenditures that are "automatically obligated by virtue of previously-enacted laws".

This compares to "discretionary spending", which is spending that is set on a yearly basis by Congress.

Some examples of "mandatory spending" expenditures in the United States are:

-Social Security
-Medicare
-Interest on National Debt
-Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program

"Mandatory spending" makes up the majority of US government expenditures.



Government Expenditure Theories - Automatic Spending vs Discretionary Spending - Who is really in control of spending?

Automatic expenditure (not surprisingly!) is expenditure that happens automatically. In other words, the government doesn't have exact control over the level of this type of expenditure. The most obvious example of this is spending on benefits. The government sets regulations for who is entitled to benefits, and it sets the level of the benefits. However, the one thing that it cannot dictate is the number of people who may then be entitled to them as this will often depend on the state of the economy. As the economy goes into recession and people lose their jobs, more people will be entitled to benefits. This will mean government expenditure will rise - not because the government chose to spend more, but simply because of the state of the economy. This spending is therefore automatic spending.

Discretionary spending is, by contrast, spending the government chooses to make. In a time of recession, it may choose to spend more to try to boost the level of aggregate demand and therefore equilibrium output. At other times, it may choose to lower the level of expenditure to avoid 'crowding out' private sector spending. Either way, it is operating a discretionary fiscal policy.

Here's the deal...Laws which are no longer practical or have worn out their usefulness can be changed.
Therefore, non discretionary spending does not exist in perpetuity.
On additional spending to "boost demand"..That has never worked. IN fact it has always made things worse.
Increases in federal spending is tantamount to the federal government manipulating the marketplace. And it feeds on itself.
When the economy slows, lower revenues to government follows. When the federal government borrows more to pump money into the economy in the form of spending, the creation of deficit is compounded.
It's the wrong path, yet politicians insist on practicing the insane idea of repeating what does not work with the expectation of a different result.

Totally false. You right wing blood letting turds never learn.

Even one of the fathers on conservatism understood that.

Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

What NEVER works is what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?

Economic Policy Under Hoover

Throughout this decline—which carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor force—the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the Veterans’ Bonus, passed over President Hoover’s veto. That aside, the full employment budget surplus did not fall over 1929–33.

The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the nominal money supply from falling. Instead, its only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931.

This inaction did not come about because they did not understand the tools of monetary policy. This inaction did not come about because the Federal Reserve was constrained by the necessity of defending the gold standard. The Federal Reserve knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sector’s task as the “liquidation” of the American economy. It feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon…felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.…He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.

 

[Vox]

HELLO? Do you understand 'tax and spend'? Democrats PAID for what they spent with TAXES. JFK and LBJ were faced with the possibility of SURPLUSES.

democrats did not pay anything - American people did.

NO, I do not approve tax and spend and I am totally opposed to it.

You should cut both spending and taxing - if you want the income of American family to grow.

Which democrats obviously, DO NOT. They want every American family being dependent on government, so ALL American people can be transformed to sheeple like libtards.

a surplus for one or two years DOES not change the negative outcome for American citizen and it happened just ONCE for a very short period of time:

 

[Vox]

One can see that justifiable growth in spending is ONLY when the median income of the family is steadily growing - not when it is declining like under Obama:

and that period ( when the curves are almost parallel) are only two times in the history of the last 45 years - 1985-1990 and 1995-2000.

With IDEAL being 1970-1973 - under NIXON ( SIC!)

 

[AmericanFirst]

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. .

How long did it take you to swallow obamaturds....well....you know. LIAR!!!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

HELLO? Do you understand 'tax and spend'? Democrats PAID for what they spent with TAXES. JFK and LBJ were faced with the possibility of SURPLUSES.

democrats did not pay anything - American people did.

NO, I do not approve tax and spend and I am totally opposed to it.

You should cut both spending and taxing - if you want the income of American family to grow.

Which democrats obviously, DO NOT. They want every American family being dependent on government, so ALL American people can be transformed to sheeple like libtards.

a surplus for one or two years DOES not change the negative outcome for American citizen and it happened just ONCE for a very short period of time:

The irony is conservatives call liberals communists, when the reality is you can't tell communists and conservatives apart.

And the first welfare state created in Bismarck’s Prussia, was created against socialist opposition. The forgotten truth is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.

If there is a nation that is more conservative than America, it's Russia...

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

 

[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?

You are incorrect. U-3, the most widely used rate is calculated by taking the number of people collecting Unemployment payments vs the number of people employed in full time jobs.
People who are out of work and do not collect or have their benefits exhausted, are no longer counted as unemployed. This is to skew downward the number of actual unemployed.
The more realistic and accurate table for measuring the plight of the unemployed is U-6.
This percentage is the number of unemployed, collecting or not, number of people eligible to work. I believe it also includes those who are 'underemployed'.
U-6 is about 14% right now.

No, I am correct, I assure you. I have already posted the relevant links and information from BLS in their mythology and how they come by their numbers. Also, you are off on what U3 and U6 means.

From my previous post:

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.

Also, as to your question as to why they have 6 different tables it is because they measure unemployment slightly differently. Together they give a much clearer indication of what’s going on. Here is the breakdown:
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

u1 tells us how long term unemployment is doing. Even with a higher unemployment at u3, having a lower U1 tells us that people are not experiencing long terms of unemployment. U2 gives us turnover. U3 actual unemployment. U4 unemployed as well as discouraged workers (ones that quit looking because they don’t think a job is out there for them. U5 and 6 include people that have part time jobs. I would consider U6 ‘better’ in general because it shows everyone that really does want to work but simply cannot find the employment that they seek. Essentially, it includes all people that are experiencing hardships in the labor force at the moment. The other numbers taken together however tell the whole story. Just using U3 or U6 would tell just a small sliver of the total story.

 

[pinqy]

Two retards that don't know what the word "only" means.

This should be fun....explain then the standards the government uses. You only mentioned those receiving benefits as being counted so there was no way to infer who else you had in mind And now you're saying you didn't mean only those on benefits but refuse to say who you do mean.

So stop ducking and say exactly who you think the govt classifies as unemployed.

Who the hell cares what crap the bs ue rate is based on?

You obviously expected others to, when you falsely claimed that those no longer collecting were no longer considered unemployed.

Eeryone knows it's complete bull carp and grossly under reports the actual number of unemployed people who are capable of working.

Since it's not supposed to measure those "capable" of work, you don't have much of a point.

The point of discussion was the people being paid to collect unemployment till it runs out then filing for disability or early retirement or finally going back to work.

And you don't think it's important to that discussion how many unemployed are collecting benefits? The survey for July used the week of July 7-13. For that week, there were 4,695,366 people collecting UI benefits (from DoL while there were 12,083,000 total unemployed according to BLS A-32. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

I read the survey in the past, it was bull carp.

So you knew you were lying when you stated that people no longer collecting were no longer counted.

 

[pinqy]

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.

What's inconvenient about the U6 is that it is very subjective (therefore bigger margin of error) and it only goes back to 1994 and so can't be compared to any earlier time period. And it Isn't a measure of unemployment since it includes people who have jobs.

Subjective in what manner? Give examples..

Unemployed is objective: either someone is actively looking for work, or they're not. The measure is based solely on action.
Marginally attached are those who looked for work and stopped, but say they actually do want to work. That's more subjective. It's based on what they say they want, not what they're doing. Similarly, part time for economic reasons is about how many hours someone would like to work. Let's say you call the U6 "real unemployment." You would classify someone working 32 hours a week involuntarily unemployed and someone working 6 hours/week voluntarily employed.

Does that really seem objective to you?

Define "working"...[/QUOTE]

 

[RKMBrown]

The measure is based solely on action.

The action, of a person, is based on a nearly unlimited number of things. So saying the measure is based solely on action is an empty statement. You are not limiting what the statistics mean by limiting them to action.

Actions of people are based on many factors. For example, whether or not you get getting paid to "continue looking for a job, without actually taking a job."

 

[Vox]

HELLO? Do you understand 'tax and spend'? Democrats PAID for what they spent with TAXES. JFK and LBJ were faced with the possibility of SURPLUSES.

democrats did not pay anything - American people did.

NO, I do not approve tax and spend and I am totally opposed to it.

You should cut both spending and taxing - if you want the income of American family to grow.

Which democrats obviously, DO NOT. They want every American family being dependent on government, so ALL American people can be transformed to sheeple like libtards.

a surplus for one or two years DOES not change the negative outcome for American citizen and it happened just ONCE for a very short period of time:

The irony is conservatives call liberals communists, when the reality is you can't tell communists and conservatives apart.

And the first welfare state created in Bismarck’s Prussia, was created against socialist opposition. The forgotten truth is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.

If there is a nation that is more conservative than America, it's Russia...

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

what does this blah-blah-blah have to do with the discussion

stop confusing the terminology and learn first what communists are, what liberals ( real, not left progressives) are and then we can talk.

 

[Bfgrn]

democrats did not pay anything - American people did.

NO, I do not approve tax and spend and I am totally opposed to it.

You should cut both spending and taxing - if you want the income of American family to grow.

Which democrats obviously, DO NOT. They want every American family being dependent on government, so ALL American people can be transformed to sheeple like libtards.

a surplus for one or two years DOES not change the negative outcome for American citizen and it happened just ONCE for a very short period of time:

The irony is conservatives call liberals communists, when the reality is you can't tell communists and conservatives apart.

And the first welfare state created in Bismarck’s Prussia, was created against socialist opposition. The forgotten truth is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.

If there is a nation that is more conservative than America, it's Russia...

People simply do not realize that Russia is a deeply conservative country.

Fiscal policy is buttressed on a low, flat rate of income tax (13%), and there is virtually no social safety net, with spending on unemployment security, medical provision, disability aid, infrastructure, the environment, and urban regeneration far lower, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than its G8 contemporaries.

Similarly, military spending is high in comparison — and growing — medical care is available free in theory, but requires private insurance or additional cash payment in practice, and businesses are in reality pretty un-regulated.

If that doesn’t sound to you like a set of policies Newt Gingrich or William F Buckley would support, then you don’t know your dyed in the wool conservatives from your woolly jumper wearing liberals.

what does this blah-blah-blah have to do with the discussion

stop confusing the terminology and learn first what communists are, what liberals ( real, not left progressives) are and then we can talk.

There is no confusion on my part...NONE what so ever. I know who and what liberals are, and I know who and what conservatives are. I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. Old give 'em hell Harry knew who and what you people are way back in 1948.


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

 

[RKMBrown]

This should be fun....explain then the standards the government uses. You only mentioned those receiving benefits as being counted so there was no way to infer who else you had in mind And now you're saying you didn't mean only those on benefits but refuse to say who you do mean.

So stop ducking and say exactly who you think the govt classifies as unemployed.

Who the hell cares what crap the bs ue rate is based on?

You obviously expected others to, when you falsely claimed that those no longer collecting were no longer considered unemployed.


Since it's not supposed to measure those "capable" of work, you don't have much of a point.

The point of discussion was the people being paid to collect unemployment till it runs out then filing for disability or early retirement or finally going back to work.

And you don't think it's important to that discussion how many unemployed are collecting benefits? The survey for July used the week of July 7-13. For that week, there were 4,695,366 people collecting UI benefits (from DoL while there were 12,083,000 total unemployed according to BLS A-32. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

I read the survey in the past, it was bull carp.

So you knew you were lying when you stated that people no longer collecting were no longer counted.

You are full of shit... and ignorant... and incapable of reading even rudimentary sentences without making up lies about their meaning as shed by some queer liberal light.

 

[pinqy]

Who the hell cares what crap the bs ue rate is based on?

You obviously expected others to, when you falsely claimed that those no longer collecting were no longer considered unemployed.


Since it's not supposed to measure those "capable" of work, you don't have much of a point.


And you don't think it's important to that discussion how many unemployed are collecting benefits? The survey for July used the week of July 7-13. For that week, there were 4,695,366 people collecting UI benefits (from DoL while there were 12,083,000 total unemployed according to BLS A-32. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

I read the survey in the past, it was bull carp.

So you knew you were lying when you stated that people no longer collecting were no longer counted.

You are full of shit... and ignorant... and incapable of reading even rudimentary sentences without making up lies about their meaning as shed by some queer liberal light.

You realize there's no argument there right? Nor a point.
Fact: the majority of those the government classifies as unemployed are NOT collecting any Unemployment insurance benefits.

Fact: the survey does not even ask if the person is receiving any benefits.

Fact: classification of unemployment has nothing to do with being given any money.

Therefore your claim was false.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Is that real or nominal dollars? If real that would mean spending growth under Obama is slower than inflation - i.e. in real dollar terms, negative


This is great news for our nation's future finances and I'm sure all Republicans will agree.

 

[RKMBrown]

You obviously expected others to, when you falsely claimed that those no longer collecting were no longer considered unemployed.


Since it's not supposed to measure those "capable" of work, you don't have much of a point.


And you don't think it's important to that discussion how many unemployed are collecting benefits? The survey for July used the week of July 7-13. For that week, there were 4,695,366 people collecting UI benefits (from DoL while there were 12,083,000 total unemployed according to BLS A-32. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

So you knew you were lying when you stated that people no longer collecting were no longer counted.

You are full of shit... and ignorant... and incapable of reading even rudimentary sentences without making up lies about their meaning as shed by some queer liberal light.

You realize there's no argument there right? Nor a point.
Fact: the majority of those the government classifies as unemployed are NOT collecting any Unemployment insurance benefits.

Fact: the survey does not even ask if the person is receiving any benefits.

Fact: classification of unemployment has nothing to do with being given any money.

Therefore your claim was false.

"PERSONS CLAIMING UI BENEFITS IN ALL PROGRAMS" 4,467,574
"Prior year" 5,530,828

Unemployment rate = 7.4% is for 11.5million people.
Prior year unemployed persons, was 12.7 million

Can you explain why when the number collecting UI benefits went down 1.1 million the total number of unemployed went down 1.2million? I'm supposed to believe that was a "COINCIDENCE?" Nah. Drop UI another 2million and the total number of unemployed will drop 1.8million... care to guess WHY?

 

[edthecynic]

You are full of shit... and ignorant... and incapable of reading even rudimentary sentences without making up lies about their meaning as shed by some queer liberal light.

You realize there's no argument there right? Nor a point.
Fact: the majority of those the government classifies as unemployed are NOT collecting any Unemployment insurance benefits.

Fact: the survey does not even ask if the person is receiving any benefits.

Fact: classification of unemployment has nothing to do with being given any money.

Therefore your claim was false.

"PERSONS CLAIMING UI BENEFITS IN ALL PROGRAMS" 4,467,574
"Prior year" 5,530,828

Unemployment rate = 7.4% is for 11.5million people.
Prior year unemployed persons, was 12.7 million

Can you explain why when the number collecting UI benefits went down 1.1 million the total number of unemployed went down 1.2million? I'm supposed to believe that was a "COINCIDENCE?" Nah. Drop UI another 2million and the total number of unemployed will drop 1.8million... care to guess WHY?

Well, your "math" is wrong again, if UI was the only factor. The number of unemployed declined by MORE than the number who left UI. So by your "logic" the unemployed should decline by 2.1 or 2.2 million. Of course the fact that the unemployed declines by a greater number than those leaving UI shoots a very big hole in your "argument."

A more logical reason for the decline in the unemployed would be an increase in the number employed. 245,756,000 currently employed, 243,354,000 employed a year ago, 1.5 million more employed. A majority of workers collecting UI find a new job in 26 weeks or less, so only a minority collected for 99 weeks in states eligible for that many weeks due to an UE rate over a certain threshold. While you and your fellow wingers milked your UI benefits to the max, most others found jobs.

 

[RKMBrown]

You realize there's no argument there right? Nor a point.
Fact: the majority of those the government classifies as unemployed are NOT collecting any Unemployment insurance benefits.

Fact: the survey does not even ask if the person is receiving any benefits.

Fact: classification of unemployment has nothing to do with being given any money.

Therefore your claim was false.

"PERSONS CLAIMING UI BENEFITS IN ALL PROGRAMS" 4,467,574
"Prior year" 5,530,828

Unemployment rate = 7.4% is for 11.5million people.
Prior year unemployed persons, was 12.7 million

Can you explain why when the number collecting UI benefits went down 1.1 million the total number of unemployed went down 1.2million? I'm supposed to believe that was a "COINCIDENCE?" Nah. Drop UI another 2million and the total number of unemployed will drop 1.8million... care to guess WHY?

Well, your "math" is wrong again, if UI was the only factor. The number of unemployed declined by MORE than the number who left UI. So by your "logic" the unemployed should decline by 2.1 or 2.2 million. Of course the fact that the unemployed declines by a greater number than those leaving UI shoots a very big hole in your "argument."

A more logical reason for the decline in the unemployed would be an increase in the number employed. 245,756,000 currently employed, 243,354,000 employed a year ago, 1.5 million more employed. A majority of workers collecting UI find a new job in 26 weeks or less, so only a minority collected for 99 weeks in states eligible for that many weeks due to an UE rate over a certain threshold. While you and your fellow wingers milked your UI benefits to the max, most others found jobs.

Where did I say UI was the only factor? WTF is your malfunction? How many times are you going to lie about my statements, only to have to admit later that you were wrong about what I said due to your incapacity to read simple sentences without imbuing some liberal agenda?

The difference between 1.1 and 1.2 is a big hole in my argument?

You are focused on statistics and are completely incapable of recognizing that more people will be unemployed when we pay them to stay unemployed than would be unemployed if we did not frigging pay them thus.

I have no idea what is wrong with you. Perhaps you've been looking at numbers on paper too long. Can you really not even consider what happens when you encourage bad behavior?

 

[KissMy]

Explain this graph from the Heritage Foundation...

Stupid Republican Debt as shown in that chart is the #1 reason I am no longer a Republican. Anyone who supports party over country is a stupid tool. You have to cut spending, not taxes to shrink government. Cutting taxes & increasing spending like Republicans did did not "Drown Government in a Bathtub", It drown the country & the economy in tax payer backed debt just like Detroit. Only an stupid idiot would vote for crap again.

 

[edthecynic]

"PERSONS CLAIMING UI BENEFITS IN ALL PROGRAMS" 4,467,574
"Prior year" 5,530,828

Unemployment rate = 7.4% is for 11.5million people.
Prior year unemployed persons, was 12.7 million

Can you explain why when the number collecting UI benefits went down 1.1 million the total number of unemployed went down 1.2million? I'm supposed to believe that was a "COINCIDENCE?" Nah. Drop UI another 2million and the total number of unemployed will drop 1.8million... care to guess WHY?

Well, your "math" is wrong again, if UI was the only factor. The number of unemployed declined by MORE than the number who left UI. So by your "logic" the unemployed should decline by 2.1 or 2.2 million. Of course the fact that the unemployed declines by a greater number than those leaving UI shoots a very big hole in your "argument."

A more logical reason for the decline in the unemployed would be an increase in the number employed. 245,756,000 currently employed, 243,354,000 employed a year ago, 1.5 million more employed. A majority of workers collecting UI find a new job in 26 weeks or less, so only a minority collected for 99 weeks in states eligible for that many weeks due to an UE rate over a certain threshold. While you and your fellow wingers milked your UI benefits to the max, most others found jobs.

Where did I say UI was the only factor? WTF is your malfunction? How many times are you going to lie about my statements, only to have to admit later that you were wrong about what I said due to your incapacity to read simple sentences without imbuing some liberal agenda?

The difference between 1.1 and 1.2 is a big hole in my argument?

You are focused on statistics and are completely incapable of recognizing that more people will be unemployed when we pay them to stay unemployed than would be unemployed if we did not frigging pay them thus.

I have no idea what is wrong with you. Perhaps you've been looking at numbers on paper too long. Can you really not even consider what happens when you encourage bad behavior?

Not everyone is as lazy as you. Get a job!!!

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, your "math" is wrong again, if UI was the only factor. The number of unemployed declined by MORE than the number who left UI. So by your "logic" the unemployed should decline by 2.1 or 2.2 million. Of course the fact that the unemployed declines by a greater number than those leaving UI shoots a very big hole in your "argument."

A more logical reason for the decline in the unemployed would be an increase in the number employed. 245,756,000 currently employed, 243,354,000 employed a year ago, 1.5 million more employed. A majority of workers collecting UI find a new job in 26 weeks or less, so only a minority collected for 99 weeks in states eligible for that many weeks due to an UE rate over a certain threshold. While you and your fellow wingers milked your UI benefits to the max, most others found jobs.

Where did I say UI was the only factor? WTF is your malfunction? How many times are you going to lie about my statements, only to have to admit later that you were wrong about what I said due to your incapacity to read simple sentences without imbuing some liberal agenda?

The difference between 1.1 and 1.2 is a big hole in my argument?

You are focused on statistics and are completely incapable of recognizing that more people will be unemployed when we pay them to stay unemployed than would be unemployed if we did not frigging pay them thus.

I have no idea what is wrong with you. Perhaps you've been looking at numbers on paper too long. Can you really not even consider what happens when you encourage bad behavior?

Not everyone is as lazy as you. Get a job!!!

Exactly. FYI I've never been out of work, nor has anyone in my family. Never, not one day, not in the four generations that I'm familiar with.