kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Unemployment is down. Gallup has it down to 7.3 percent but don't let actual facts get in your way. So you don't understand unemployment statistics. Noted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Put aside your perceptions of California for a moment and try addressing the more important points I'm making which redress the lies from the original post. You won't do it, and it's not a product of your integrity. No clue what you are talking about. Is it that Gallup has unemployment down to 7.3%? Is that September had the most housing starts in 4 years? Is it that Obama had a surplus in Sept something Bush never did? I don't know what you want. You come here and lie and I call you on it. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 So you don't understand unemployment statistics. Noted. I think it is quite clear who understands employment stats and who doesn't in this thread. You didn't even know that California's numbers would not effect the unemployment number because it is calculated differently. Come on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 How do you know Business Insider wasn't mistaken? Are you sure that your...surety....isn't tainted by partisan emotions? Unemployment is down. Gallup has it down to 7.3 percent but don't let actual facts get in your way. Tangentially, the CEO of Gallup is onboard with scepticism of the employment statistics. http://thechairmansblog.gallup.com/2012/09/dont-be-misled-by-us-unemployment-rate.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Tangentially, the CEO of Gallup is onboard with scepticism of the employment statistics. http://thechairmansb...yment-rate.html He thinks his own polls are wrong? Well that puts a lot of confidence in those Romney's numbers you bet on doesn't it? Gallup has the unemployment number down to 7.3% just go look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 I think it is quite clear who understands employment stats and who doesn't in this thread. You didn't even know that California's numbers would not effect the unemployment number because it is calculated differently. Come on. Find out what the U6 is and then get back to me, it's up to 14.7% from 14.2% when Obama took office, after about a trillion dollar "job stimulus". Predictably, you can't address any of the relevant economic statistics I shared earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) He thinks his own polls are wrong? Well that puts a lot of confidence in those Romney's numbers you bet on doesn't it? Gallup has the unemployment number down to 7.3% just go look. There's a huge difference between the way unemployment statistics are collected and reported by the BLS and the way political support is collected for the upcoming presidential election, separating their reliability. But hey, strawman arguments comparing apples and oranges is fun, right? Edited October 18, 2012 by kraychik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Find out what the U6 is and then get back to me, it's up to 14.7% from 14.2% when Obama took office, after about a trillion dollar "job stimulus". Predictably, you can't address any of the relevant economic statistics I shared earlier. Got it you want to change the rules now. I don't remember anyone ever talking about the U6 state until right now. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah because Reagan had to change the rules to make his numbers look better. Sorry you are wrong. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158060/unadjusted-unemployment-mid-october.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 There's a huge difference between the way unemployment statistics are collected and reported by the BLS and the way political support is collected for the upcoming presidential election, separating their reliability. But hey, strawman arguments comparing apples and oranges is fun, right? There's a huge difference between the way unemployment statistics are collected and reported by the BLS and the way political support is collected for the upcoming presidential election, separating their reliability. But hey, strawman arguments comparing apples and oranges is fun, right? So either we agree or we don't. Is Gallup a bad pollster who is wrong or are the right? You don't get have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Got it you want to change the rules now. I don't remember anyone ever talking about the U6 state until right now. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah because Reagan had to change the rules to make his numbers look better. Sorry you are wrong. http://www.gallup.co...id-october.aspx Actually, it was Clinton to redefined unemployment calculation methodologies most recently. The fact remains that Romney's statement in the debate was correct: there are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office, both in term of absolute numbers and in terms of their proportion of the total population. And again, net worth is down, federal debt is way up, and wages are down. And bleeding heart happily parrots the lie from a communist rag like a pro-bono internet commissar. Pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 So either we agree or we don't. Is Gallup a bad pollster who is wrong or are the right? You don't get have it both ways. Nice strawman argument. And nice dodge from the major thrust of the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Nice strawman argument. And nice dodge from the major thrust of the conversation. What conversation you said the BLS numbers were wrong, I pointed out that was a lie. That was the conversation as I understood it. I can go back and quote you where I jumped in. I pointed out what you said was a Lie. What Romney said was a lie and that who argument is one based on lies. That is how I saw it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Actually, it was Clinton to redefined unemployment calculation methodologies most recently. The fact remains that Romney's statement in the debate was correct: there are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office, both in term of absolute numbers and in terms of their proportion of the total population. And again, net worth is down, federal debt is way up, and wages are down. And bleeding heart happily parrots the lie from a communist rag like a pro-bono internet commissar. Pathetic. There are more Americans working today then when Obama took office. That is a fact. Obama has created about 5 Million more jobs in 4 years then Bus did in 8. That is a fact. Unemployment is down, housing starts are up and we are going to get another BLS report before the election BTW. Those are the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) And bleeding heart happily parrots the lie from a communist rag like a pro-bono internet commissar. Pathetic. I see you read "pro-bono internet commissar" on some blog, liked it, and so have chosen to...well, "parrot it." Again and again. I'm also fascinated by the remarkable contemporary phenomenon: this entity called "the left" is brimming with "propaganda," while this thing called "the Right" is free from it, inclined only towards plain reportage and objective truth. Meaning, for one, that you opposed the Iraq War, of course...the extreme propaganda surrounding that little war of aggression, some it actual Soviet-style, has been well-documented. And this is actually rare, this indulging in crude, totalitarian-style propaganda: contemporary propaganda, as the term is generally used, is essentially the invention of the US and Great Britain, around the First World War (and coinciding, predictably, with the rise of modern advertising techniques). It is relatively sophisticated...as your own dewy-eyed adherence to it attests. That is to say, it is the pro-Western State and military objectives that gave rise to the most effective propaganda...not the Soviet-inspired left, as some ahistorical, less-than-thoughtful folks like to think. But at any rate, any publication like The Nation, which appears to me quite solidly in support of the centrist wing of the Business Party, could hardly be termed "Communist." I thought the accurate use of political words was important to you? Edited October 18, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 What conversation you said the BLS numbers were wrong, I pointed out that was a lie. That was the conversation as I understood it. I can go back and quote you where I jumped in. I pointed out what you said was a Lie. What Romney said was a lie and that who argument is one based on lies. That is how I saw it. You can believe what you want about California's labour statistics not being included in the September jobs report. It makes no difference. What is revealing, however, is that you continue to dodge these main facts, which I won't repeat again: There are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office, both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of proportion of the total population. 14.2% to 14.7%, according to the most recent unemployment statistics from the BLS. A great proportion of employed Americans are working part-time than was the case when Obama took office. Average net worth for Americans is down 40% over the past three years. Total federal debt for Americans is up about 40%, or around $18K per person since Obama took office. Both average and median wages have dropped since Obama took office, although admittedly this is with the sketchy "household income" measurement. Household income has dropped about $3K. Although even per capita income has also dropped when adjusted for inflation, which of course stands to reason given the drop in average and median household income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 You can believe what you want about California's labour statistics not being included in the September jobs report. It makes no difference. What is revealing, however, is that you continue to dodge these main facts, which I won't repeat again: No this is the problem. I can't "believe what I want" either the numbers were or were not included in the 7.3 unemployment number. This isn't an opinion thing. I can't believe 2+2=5 like you do I know it adds to 4 it is quite obvious it adds to 4. This is the problem. There are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office, both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of proportion of the total population. 14.2% to 14.7%, according to the most recent unemployment statistics from the BLS. A great proportion of employed Americans are working part-time than was the case when Obama took office. Average net worth for Americans is down 40% over the past three years. Total federal debt for Americans is up about 40%, or around $18K per person since Obama took office. Both average and median wages have dropped since Obama took office, although admittedly this is with the sketchy "household income" measurement. Household income has dropped about $3K. Although even per capita income has also dropped when adjusted for inflation, which of course stands to reason given the drop in average and median household income. You want the Republican record on Job creation? Bush left office not creating a single job, and Romney is running on Bush policies with Bis advisers. Obama is a net job creator. Obama did it with shrinking government jobs. Bush added government jobs a lot of them and still couldn't get a positive number. Those are facts. We have already tried Bush policies they didn't do anything. I'll take something over nothing anyday. You wont. Unemployment is down Gallup has it at 7.3% and falling, jobs numbers are up. FACTS! THEY MATTER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 There are more Americans working today then when Obama took office. That is a fact. Nope. Total unemployment has increased from 14.2% to 14.7%. Now that's a real fact. It's about 40K more Americans out of work. And that's to say nothing of the large migration of full-time workers to part-time workers among those people that WANT and NEED full-time employment. The Google link is easy to operate, click on "Unemployment" and move the mouse cursor over the line graph and compare the most recent data to that from January of 2009. http://portalseven.c...ent_rate_u6.jsp http://www.google.co...en_US&ind=false Obama has created about 5 Million more jobs in 4 years then Bus did in 8. That is a fact. Who cares about Bush? Is Bush on the ticket? Moreover, the Bush economy was healthier than the Obama economy. It's irrelevant, anyways. What we're discussing here is Obama's record of economic ruin. Unemployment is down, housing starts are up and we are going to get another BLS report before the election BTW. As I've demonstrated countless time in this thread alone, unemployment is UP. I'm not sure how construction of homes being up is such comforting news to the average American who has lost, over the past three years, 40% of his or her net worth (which is primarily formed by the value of one's home). Those are the facts. Actually, they're falsehoods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Lets just add to that NONE OF ROMNEY's JOBS PLAN MAKES ANY SENSE. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-romneys-facts-are-curious-things/2012/10/17/11157cc6-189f-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_story.html?hpid=z2 So do we go with the guy who is running with a bunch of people advising him who had 8 years and lost jobs? A guy who has a plan that makes no sense? A guy from a party who caused the worst recession in history? Or do we go with the guy who created 5 Million new jobs and saw the largest one year drop in unemployment in 17 years? I know who I will be voting for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Is an op-ed from the WaPo supposed to fool people into thinking you're not running from your fake "facts"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 U6 is not an unemployment measure. It includes part-time workers who want full-time work. So it doesn’t count the increase in part-time work. But every measure of actual unemployment — U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 — went down. You can see them all here. Again, there’s no mystery. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Is an op-ed from the WaPo supposed to fool people into thinking you're not running from your fake "facts"? Go a head point out what facts are wrong. You want me to count people who are working as Unemployed that is what you want. I don't know what unemployed is where you come from but it isn't people who are working where I come from. Maybe you can say underemployed but be careful because that is what socialist and leftest talk about. You can join them though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 Go a head point out what facts are wrong. It's been done. It's always the one who screams "liar!" the most that is invariably the most dishonest one in the room. You and bleeding heart and peas in a pod. It's funny how you're now disputing the BLS statistics that you were touting before, which show an increase in unemployment as well as an increased proportion of total employed persons who are working part-time. "Tractor production is up, comrades!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 It's been done. It's always the one who screams "liar!" the most that is invariably the most dishonest one in the room. You and bleeding heart and peas in a pod. It's funny how you're now disputing the BLS statistics that you were touting before, which show an increase in unemployment as well as an increased proportion of total employed persons who are working part-time. "Tractor production is up, comrades!". You didn't point out one lie. You quoted a number that INCLUDES people who are working to PROVE unemployment is up. The you said who cares if Romney supported all Bushes policies is running on those failed policies and none of his numbers add up. That is all that has happened so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 It's always the one who screams "liar!" the most that is invariably the most dishonest one in the room. Not when he has shown that the one he is calling that ...is actually lying. Kinda hard to dig out of that one, but hey, righties like you and shady are well known to change facts or be outright dishonest about things. Embarassed yet? I doubt it, but the rest of us can see who's who Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted October 18, 2012 Report Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Not when he has shown that the one he is calling that ...is actually lying. Kinda hard to dig out of that one, but hey, righties like you and shady are well known to change facts or be outright dishonest about things. Embarassed yet? I doubt it, but the rest of us can see who's who So you're onboard with punked and bleeding heart? You're disputing the fact that there are more Americans out of work today, both in terms of proportion of the population AND in terms of absolute numbers, than when Obama took office? Edited October 18, 2012 by kraychik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.