• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

Status
Not open for further replies.
And yet again, there is no dispute that the current U-3 number includes fewer discouraged workes than it used to. But OVER ALL, due to other changes that reduced the undercounting of unemployed people, the current methodology results in a higher unemployment rate than the pre-94 methodology. No dodging that bullet.

No dodging the information in the article either

Data, beginning 1994, are not directly comparable with those for 1993 and prior years as a result of the redesign of the CPS. In addition, data comparisons are affected by the incorporation of new population controls and other methodological changes
 
There's nothing I need to answer which wasn't addressed in post #1135 regrading discouraged workers. Perhaps the problem is that this is just another topic you don't understand? Afterall, you were easily tripped up by 'CPS'. If that's the case, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

Perhaps you are having problems reading the article, so once again:

Data, beginning 1994, are not directly comparable with those for 1993 and prior years as a result of the redesign of the CPS. In addition, data comparisons are affected by the incorporation of new population controls and other methodological changes

The fact that population calculation changes as well as discouraged workers no longer being counted make a difference which you want to ignore. not going to happen. Reagan had better employment and undemployment numbers than Obama 36 months into office and Reagan had a recession that began in July 1981 that ended in November 1982
 
Sheik, my head is fully above ground and my eyes open, Obama's policies have been a failure and the results show it. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance. you have a lot invested in the hated of Bush and ignorance of the data choosing to post percentage change vs. actual numbers.
you have a lot invested in the hatred of Obama, see, that coin has two sides.
 
you have a lot invested in the hatred of Obama, see, that coin has two sides.

How you coming on determining if the GDP for 2011 was more or less than 2010 so that you can claim an improving economy?
 
Lets take a look at post 1113 and see if that is true:

Actually, this is an example of you moving the goalposts, not Conservative. He asked for a comparison between 2010 and 2011 and you gave a comparison between 2009 and 2010. But the graph you posted backs up his point--that GDP growth in 2011 declined from 2010.

Go back and look at the post he was responding to and get back to me. If you pay attention, then you might get a handle on why he went skippin off to Europe lookin for another place to plant his new goalpost. The graph shows whatta disaster he's been defending since he landed at DP.
 
Perhaps you are having problems reading the article, so once again:



The fact that population calculation changes as well as discouraged workers no longer being counted make a difference which you want to ignore. not going to happen. Reagan had better employment and undemployment numbers than Obama 36 months into office and Reagan had a recession that began in July 1981 that ended in November 1982

I like how you compare the unemployment numbers between Reagan and Obama while at the same time, quote an article stating you can't compare the unemployment numbers between Reagan and Obama.

Not many people can even attempt such blatant levels of dishonesty, but on you, it fits like a tailor made suit.

By the way have you learned what 'CPS' is yet?

:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
I like how you compare the unemployment numbers between Reagan and Obama while at the same time, quote an article stating you can't compare the unemployment numbers between Reagan and Obama.

Not many people can even attempt such blatant levels of dishonesty, but on you, it fits like a tailor made suit.

By the way have you learned what 'CPS' is yet?

:lamo:lamo:lamo

I can't seem to understand you....must be your avatar. :mrgreen:
 
Go back and look at the post he was responding to and get back to me. If you pay attention, then you might get a handle on why he went skippin off to Europe lookin for another place to plant his new goalpost. The graph shows whatta disaster he's been defending since he landed at DP.

Your data shows that the GDP growth in 2011 was half of 2010 which makes this the worst recovery from a recession in U.S. History. Guess Bush snuck back into the WH and made economic policy last year, right? In addition 1,059,000 discouraged workers in January 2012 vs 993,000 in January 2011 doesn't indicate that things are getting better no matter the propaganda "Your" President is spewing
 
Seriously Sheik you would be taken more seriously if you weren't so caustic. Read the article completely and get back to me. I asked you the question which you ran from, were discouraged workers counted during the Reagan years as unemployed or were they eliminated as they are today. Read the report for the answer
'Seriously Sheik you would be taken more seriously if you weren't so caustic.'.... oh no, you did not!!!:lamo
 
I like how you compare the unemployment numbers between Reagan and Obama while at the same time, quote an article stating you can't compare the unemployment numbers between Reagan and Obama.

Not many people can even attempt such blatant levels of dishonesty, but on you, it fits like a tailor made suit.

By the way have you learned what 'CPS' is yet?

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Very simple, were discouraged workers counted as unemployed or not counted at all during the Reagan years?
 
'Seriously Sheik you would be taken more seriously if you weren't so caustic.'.... oh no, you did not!!!:lamo

Aw, yes, the liberal cheerleader is back, how about those GDP numbers for 2011, still waiting to show that improving economy. How about discouraged workers, better or worse? Keep buying the rhetoric, union proud!!
 
I can't seem to understand you....must be your avatar. :mrgreen:

If you can't understand what I write because of my avatar, you have far bigger problems than anyone here can help with.

:coffeepap
 
How you coming on determining if the GDP for 2011 was more or less than 2010 so that you can claim an improving economy?
how you coming answering the question in my sig? it has been there for awhile now
 
Aw, yes, the liberal cheerleader is back, how about those GDP numbers for 2011, still waiting to show that improving economy. How about discouraged workers, better or worse? Keep buying the rhetoric, union proud!!

acorn-logo.gif
 
Aw, yes, the liberal cheerleader is back, how about those GDP numbers for 2011, still waiting to show that improving economy. How about discouraged workers, better or worse? Keep buying the rhetoric, union proud!!

Howls the poster who doesn't understand that GDP grew stronger every quarter since Q1-2011.

:roll:
 
If you can't understand what I write because of my avatar, you have far bigger problems than anyone here can help with.

:coffeepap

Oh yeah! Biiiiiiig problems, so big, ultra big, extra big! I'm just your usual racist, sexist, bigotry filled, and homophobic conservative, and Papist nut-job.
 
how you coming answering the question in my sig? it has been there for awhile now

Your signature has nothing to do with the thread topic and normally the same occurs with your posts. Having problems understanding that 'your' President has made a fool out of you?
 
Howls the poster who doesn't understand that GDP grew stronger every quarter since Q1-2011.

:roll:

Says the poster who doesn't understand that 2011 GDP is almost half of the 2010 GDP. Those are improving results to a liberal especially those with such low expectations like you apparently have
 
Aw, yes, the liberal cheerleader is back, how about those GDP numbers for 2011, still waiting to show that improving economy. How about discouraged workers, better or worse? Keep buying the rhetoric, union proud!!
aw yes, con getting his ass handed to him by multiple posters, decides to go , oh, what was that word...'caustic'?? why yes, i do believe that is the word, 'caustic'....perhaps you and your buddy 'amigo'(lol) should stage a hasty retreat from this thread, it really is hard watching you embarrass your yourself, over and over.
 
Very simple, were discouraged workers counted as unemployed or not counted at all during the Reagan years?

asked and answered ... Asked again and given same answer ... Asked again and given same answer ...

That was already addressed in post #1135. How many more times are you going to ask the same question, Con?

Are you not aware of the definition of one who continually repeats the same behavior, but expects different results?


:eek:
 
Oh yeah! Biiiiiiig problems, so big, ultra big, extra big! I'm just your usual racist, sexist, bigotry filled, and homophobic conservative, and Papist nut-job.

Ok, if you say so. After all, who knows you better than you?
 
Your data shows that the GDP growth in 2011 was half of 2010 which makes this the worst recovery from a recession in U.S. History. Guess Bush snuck back into the WH and made economic policy last year, right? In addition 1,059,000 discouraged workers in January 2012 vs 993,000 in January 2011 doesn't indicate that things are getting better no matter the propaganda "Your" President is spewing

What made you go looking for anther place to stick your goalpost,yet again ,was the graph that showed the last eight quarters of the bush administration (5 negative vis 1 positive qtr) compared to Obamas(7 positive vis 1 negative qtr).Gotta suck defending that kinda record.:(
 
aw yes, con getting his ass handed to him by multiple posters, decides to go , oh, what was that word...'caustic'?? why yes, i do believe that is the word, 'caustic'....perhaps you and your buddy 'amigo'(lol) should stage a hasty retreat from this thread, it really is hard watching you embarrass your yourself, over and over.

Apparently a growing economy in the union world is one that is half the previous year. Stick with the unions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom