Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
agreed, except the "idiots" part.
From the guy who accused them of engaging in a circle jerk, idiocy is too harsh a description?? lol
No. "idiots" is a direct charge, but "idiocy" is ok.
Do you dispute that what they are propagating is 'idiocy'?
Did you even check the link?
Is US DEBT CLOCK a secret conservative attempt to undermine Obama?
I already went through this yesterday. The debt clock number is U-6. That is the unemployment number the BLS reports which includes parttime workers, discouraged unemployed, etc.
It always runs about 80% higher than the official UE number, which is U-3. It is not some unique 'Obama' phenomenon,
except to the extent that you people are trying to make it so. Which is idiocy.
Did you even check the link?
Is US DEBT CLOCK a secret conservative attempt to undermine Obama?
I already went through this yesterday. The debt clock number is U-6. That is the unemployment number the BLS reports which includes parttime workers, discouraged unemployed, etc.
It always runs about 80% higher than the official UE number, which is U-3. It is not some unique 'Obama' phenomenon,
except to the extent that you people are trying to make it so. Which is idiocy.
I agree with all of this except for "you people."
(ok that was a joke).
Did you even check the link?
Is US DEBT CLOCK a secret conservative attempt to undermine Obama?
I already went through this yesterday. The debt clock number is U-6. That is the unemployment number the BLS reports which includes parttime workers, discouraged unemployed, etc.
It always runs about 80% higher than the official UE number, which is U-3. It is not some unique 'Obama' phenomenon,
except to the extent that you people are trying to make it so. Which is idiocy.
Uhhh, I've been checking that site longer than Big 0 has been in the WH. And I will keep checking it until this "internet" fad goes away.
From the guy who accused them of engaging in a circle jerk, idiocy is too harsh a description?? lol
No. "idiots" is a direct charge, but "idiocy" is ok.
Expertise comes from experts, correct? Therefore, idiocy comes from idiots. It's called the English language.
I already went through this yesterday. The debt clock number is U-6. That is the unemployment number the BLS reports which includes parttime workers, discouraged unemployed, etc.
It always runs about 80% higher than the official UE number, which is U-3. It is not some unique 'Obama' phenomenon,
except to the extent that you people are trying to make it so. Which is idiocy.
Uhhh, I've been checking that site longer than Big 0 has been in the WH. And I will keep checking it until this "internet" fad goes away.
Then you already know that it's a propaganda stunt to attempt to drag out U-6 as some 'real' unemployment number with an attached implication that it is somehow unique to this economy, i.e., the Obama economy...
Uhhh, I've been checking that site longer than Big 0 has been in the WH. And I will keep checking it until this "internet" fad goes away.
Then you already know that it's a propaganda stunt to attempt to drag out U-6 as some 'real' unemployment number with an attached implication that it is somehow unique to this economy, i.e., the Obama economy...
Just as the stunt was used on Bush.
Why use the bs u-3 when the u-6 is the real'er' number?
that way everyone gets to cover their ass and the other team gets to bitch and moan.
It's a win-win.
)E-Mail Joke....... (Or is it?
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
>
> ABBOTT: Good subject in these terrible times. It's about 9%.
>
> COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>
> COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
>
> ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: Right - 9% out of work.
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>
> COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
>
> COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
>
> ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
>
> COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.
>
> ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have
> to look for work to be unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: But ... they are out of work!
>
> ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
>
> COSTELLO: What point?
>
> ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look
> for work. It wouldn't be fair.
>
> COSTELLO: To who?
>
> ABBOTT: To the unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
>
> ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are
> out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no
> longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less
> unemployment?
>
> ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
>
> COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
>
> ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it
> would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do you?
>
> COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
>
> ABBOTT: Absolutely.
>
> COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
> bring down the unemployment number?
>
> ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
>
> COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
>
> ABBOTT: Correct.
>
> COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>
> ABBOTT: Bingo.
>
> COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of
> the two is to just stop looking for work.
>
> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
>
> COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
>
> And now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving!
>
With apologies to the 'who's on first' routine....
I cannot blah blah blah right now blah blah blah 24 hours blah blah blah. Great postE-Mail Joke....... (Or is it?
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
>
> ABBOTT: Good subject in these terrible times. It's about 9%.
>
> COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>
> COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
>
> ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: Right - 9% out of work.
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
>
> COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
>
> ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...
>
> COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?
>
> ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
>
> COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.
>
> ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have
> to look for work to be unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: But ... they are out of work!
>
> ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
>
> COSTELLO: What point?
>
> ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look
> for work. It wouldn't be fair.
>
> COSTELLO: To who?
>
> ABBOTT: To the unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
>
> ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are
> out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no
> longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
>
> COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less
> unemployment?
>
> ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
>
> COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?
>
> ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it
> would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do you?
>
> COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
>
> ABBOTT: Absolutely.
>
> COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
> bring down the unemployment number?
>
> ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
>
> COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
>
> ABBOTT: Correct.
>
> COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
>
> ABBOTT: Bingo.
>
> COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of
> the two is to just stop looking for work.
>
> ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
>
> COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!
>
> And now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving!
>
With apologies to the 'who's on first' routine....
Most businesses have fourth quarter tax bills due in January. There is also the slowdown from northern weather, consumer pullback from holiday spending and higher fuel prices. Common sense tells you there should be more unemployment, not less. This is why I feel the numbers are suspect and will wait for the corrections.
If there is this grand recovery, then it happened post bailout monies impact and those who touted the virtues of that need to reassess.
Your own link says you're full of shit!There's no way I would trust those numbers. The collection of data. is not accurate. The fact that when a person who does not go back to work and has stop receiving unemployed checks are no longer counter as unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
None of the millions who have given up even looking for work are counted.
None of the millions who are working part-time because there are no real jobs are counted.
None of the tens of thousands of military soon to be out of work as The Apologist-In-Chief beats the drum for weakness and socialism will be counted.
But....don't worry....be happy......
Most businesses have fourth quarter tax bills due in January. There is also the slowdown from northern weather, consumer pullback from holiday spending and higher fuel prices. Common sense tells you there should be more unemployment, not less. This is why I feel the numbers are suspect and will wait for the corrections.
If there is this grand recovery, then it happened post bailout monies impact and those who touted the virtues of that need to reassess.
Your own link says you're full of shit!There's no way I would trust those numbers. The collection of data. is not accurate. The fact that when a person who does not go back to work and has stop receiving unemployed checks are no longer counter as unemployed.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
But, just for the fun of it, let's assume you aren't full of shit. The GOP would not extend unemployment benefits during the Bush Regime so they could only collect for 26 weeks and then they were not counted any more as you say. Today they collect for 99 weeks, 3.8 times longer than during the Bush Regime, so to get Bush's REAL U-3 numbers you must multiply by a factor of 3.8, so Bush averaged about a 20% REAL U-3 rate for his 8 years.
Most businesses have fourth quarter tax bills due in January. There is also the slowdown from northern weather, consumer pullback from holiday spending and higher fuel prices. Common sense tells you there should be more unemployment, not less. This is why I feel the numbers are suspect and will wait for the corrections.
If there is this grand recovery, then it happened post bailout monies impact and those who touted the virtues of that need to reassess.
Since there should be more unemployment, as you say, doesn't that make the new numbers even more impressive by bucking an established trend?
Most businesses have fourth quarter tax bills due in January. There is also the slowdown from northern weather, consumer pullback from holiday spending and higher fuel prices. Common sense tells you there should be more unemployment, not less. This is why I feel the numbers are suspect and will wait for the corrections.
If there is this grand recovery, then it happened post bailout monies impact and those who touted the virtues of that need to reassess.
Since there should be more unemployment, as you say, doesn't that make the new numbers even more impressive by bucking an established trend?
It makes the numbers more suspect. If true, yes it is good news. Reality doesn't seem to jive with the numbers though.
Being fair and balanced with people who try to use false cooked numbers to influence other people. Are you for real?Since there should be more unemployment, as you say, doesn't that make the new numbers even more impressive by bucking an established trend?
It makes the numbers more suspect. If true, yes it is good news. Reality doesn't seem to jive with the numbers though.
It makes the criticism of the job numbers suspect, too, if they're actually better than should be expected. Kind of a wash, don't you think? It's not like Obama's detractors are trying to be "fair and balanced", you know.
