RedskinsFan44 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 If you are bored you can do a costs per job analysis we will wait Hard to do when Bush had so many things "off budget". Where is W, anyhow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 did they really miss counting nearly 100K govt jobs in July and August while proclaiming how govt workers were being cut???? Did twa just invent another claim (that the 100K difference was composed entirely of government jobs), and then try to claim that the evil Obama administration intentionally made the economy (the same economy that the Republicans have been beating them over the head with for four years) look intentional worse, as part of some evil plot? Why yes, he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Hard to do when Bush had so many things "off budget". Where is W, anyhow? not hard at all, govt spending and debt is listed even w/o a budget....a strange complaint since budgets don't seem to be a priority with this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 If you are bored you can do a costs per job analysis we will wait Need some help changing the topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 If accurate LOL-The number of employed Americans comes from a government survey of 60,000 households that determines the unemployment rate. The government asks a series of questions, by phone or in person. For example: Do you own a business? Did you work for pay? If not, did you provide unpaid work for a family business or farm? (Those who did are considered employed.) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html Really, Unpaid work is "employed?? Makes sense now. So families who own farms which are their income should be considered unemployed? For crying out loud do just choose to not think before you hit "post quick reply". I'm done, this thread went from good news to typical Rightwing nut talk to absurd non-thinking blathering tinfoil hatland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Need some help changing the topic? It seems on topic to me But if you would prefer to discuss why the govt overlooked so many govt job hires I am certainly open. or why a historic spike exists in the survey,despite the GDP being anaemic is it a problem with methodology or the people involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Unemployment is under 8% in the same sense and degree that David Brooks of the NYTimes is a "conservative." LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Do what you want but many just don't fall into the chug a lug lemming crowd as many here do. ^^^^ From a guy who, two hours ago, went to NewsBusters, found a commentary piece where the commentator didn't even have the guts to claim fraud, but who chose only to hint at it, then extrapolated the NewsBuster's hint, so he could announce something that even the commentators on NewsBusters won't say, out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Unemployment is under 8% in the same sense and degree that David Brooks of the NYTimes is a "conservative." LOL That actually may be a much more meaningful statement than you think. Either that, or the Conservative Tent has become a pup tent or smaller in recent years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 If accurate LOL-The number of employed Americans comes from a government survey of 60,000 households that determines the unemployment rate. The government asks a series of questions, by phone or in person. For example: Do you own a business? Did you work for pay? If not, did you provide unpaid work for a family business or farm? (Those who did are considered employed.) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html Really, Unpaid work is "employed?? Makes sense now. Waiting for you to point out which of those things are in any way different from the way we've been doing things, for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Unemployment is under 8% in the same sense and degree that David Brooks of the NYTimes is a "conservative." LOL Did you really laugh out loud when you thought of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I don't think I've ever seen so much outrage and controversy related to good economic news before. You wingnuts should be proud of yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 That actually may be a much more meaningful statement than you think. Either that, or the Conservative Tent has become a pup tent or smaller in recent years Hey Burgold, the GOP is just getting more "selective" in recent years. I think the methodology of calculating the unemployment #'s has been gamed for quite some time. Part time = Full Time. Underemployed can't be factored in. Those who've quit searching are excluded altogether. The Obama camp wants to divert attention from the stinker debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Unemployment is under 8% in the same sense and degree that David Brooks of the NYTimes is a "conservative." LOL Waiting for you to point out in what way the method for calculating the unemployment number is in any way different from the way we've been doing things, for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Did you really laugh out loud when you thought of that? Well, I laugh at the Obama Administration and Obama specifically. A lot. There's always great comedic material he's offering up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Hey Burgold, the GOP is just getting more "selective" in recent years. Interesting and dangerous strategy in a nation where the majority decides elections. I guess that's why the GOP is working so hard to make sure that the right to vote is infringed on. Look at how many efforts the GOP is undergoing right now not to "rock the vote" but supress the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 I don't think I've ever seen so much outrage and controversy related to good economic news before. You wingnuts should be proud of yourselves. In a real way, I agree with this statement. I really dislike people rooting against the U.S. and that's what this feels like. To be fair, some lousy Dems seemed to do this when the Surge first started and I thought that was rotten too. Why should it be so important and be so earnest in your wish to see American failure that you can't celebrate some good news? I have my suspiscions about the numbers too, but I suspect the flaws in the numbers are the same flaws that were around a month ago, six months ago or six years ago and therefore, this does represent a good positive change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I don't think I've ever seen so much outrage and controversy related to good economic news before. You wingnuts should be proud of yourselves. It's become a conditioned reflex. When confronted by things you don't want to hear (like, say, the economy getting better), immediately try to find an excuse to ignore it. Even when, as people pointed out, it isn't necessary. The GOP reaction should have been "Not good enough!" (Or, more subtly, "Well, if the American People think things are Good Enough, then I guess they'll vote Democrat".) ---------- Also observing that ES appears to be back in the Twilight Zone, with the clocks being off in some of the servers. We're having posts show up out of sequence, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 it is good news that full time hires are down and 600K supposedly found part time work? Oh, you mean the 7.8 talking point is good news ....and it is unpatriotic not to celebrate a empty number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Well, I laugh at the Obama Administration and Obama specifically. A lot. There's always great comedic material he's offering up. Nah I think incoherent rage is probably more accurate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 it is good news that full time hires are down and 600K supposedly found part time work?Oh, you mean the 7.8 talking point is good news ....and it is unpatriotic not to celebrate a empty number It is good to celebrate the cup being half full... and that August's numbers were better than we thought. Is it good enough to be satisfied... Hell no. But it's better than most thought, projected, or feared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 it is good news that full time hires are down Got any support for that claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Got any support for that claim? look at the revised numbers for the last two months....need more? july- 181,000 august-142,000 of course there is always hope for a revision to septembers numbers of 114,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 look at the revised numbers for the last two months....need more?july- 181,000 august-142,000 of course there is always hope for a revision to septembers numbers of 114,000 1) I don't see a link in there. 2) Ah, so your definition of "down" is "not getting better as quickly as they got better in this one month, here"? I'm assuming (since you didn't say), that the numbers you're showing here are the number of new jobs gained? 3) And, if we do take those numbers, and that definition of "down", does that mean that the numbers are lower than they have been, in general? Or does it mean "twa picked the best number we've seen, recently, and then complained that the next two numbers didn't set even bigger records"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 1) I don't see a link in there. 2) Ah, so your definition of "down" is "not getting better as quickly as they got better in this one month, here"? I'm assuming (since you didn't say), that the numbers you're showing here are the number of new jobs gained? it is the full time jobs numbers from the OP, you need a link? the number is trending down and is not much higher than last septembers of 103,000, with the private sector hiring actually doing worse than last year at this time http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/07/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.