Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 294

Thread: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I'm tired of dealing with you. You've been given the numbers, you have been given the facts. Every time you get facts you just brush them off because you don't want to hear the truth. I'm done with trying to explain things to someone who clearly has no interest in the truth.
    We have. Many times.

    But you still quote them anyways when they support the point you want to make. You are the very definition of bias and partisanship.

    Yes, that's exactly what he does.

    There are groups of people in the world who do not care about facts and are more than willing to lie just so their team can win. They don't care about truth and they have no integrity. When facts show them to be wrong, they just call the facts lies, without any basis to do so. These types of people are simply nuts (or sometimes they manifest themselves as trolls) and they completely ruin any attempt at quality conversation.
    You use the numbers Obama want you to see. Real unemployment is twice that. You want to ignore labor participation because it show how bad the employment situation really is

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    You don't really lose the true numbers, you get a more complete (and more useful) description of what's actually happening.

    For example, let's say you were in charge of a business that had salesman. Would you be content with just knowing how much money the salesman as a group made you (let's say $100, for an easy number)? Or would you want to know that salesman A made $60, salesman B made $30 and salesman C-E combined only made $10? Furthermore, would you not want to know that salesman A made his $60 by selling 50 units of product A, 30 units of product B and 5 units of products C-E?

    Of course you would. Having more detailed information allows for a more exact picture of what is actually happening. If I just said "well, I made $100", then it would hide the fact I had 3 salesmen who were not really doing anything and it would hide the fact I spending money on products C-E which don't sell.

    Simple numbers may be easy for those who don't really care but having more detailed information is just more useful and gives a much better picture of what is actually happening.
    Stop the lies. Obama and the democrats never give the truth. They always try to make it look not as bad as it really is. Try looking at real unemployment

    Laid Off? Join 31 million unemployed Americans - UCubed — Blog — The Real Unemployment Rate

  3. #193
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Estimates? You call that reliable?
    Compared to your pulling numbers out of your ass? Of course.

    What more reliable method would you propose?
    For the UE rate, at 90% confidence, the margin of error is +/- 0.2 percentage points (meaning the "real" number is somewhere between 5.7 and 6.1%

    Compare to Gallup's estimate with a margin of error of +/- 0.7 percentage points.

    But in any case, I note you're skipping over that you just made up where the data came from and decided to pass it off as fact without trying to see if you were right. Do you really consider that honest?
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  4. #194
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Excellent Pol, You have put my feelings into writing which portrays them as they should be. I don't have an answer either. We lost our industrial base due to an over abundance of regulations, mandates and taxes. And yes, those once good paying jobs are overseas making someone else happy. Do we as a country actually make anything anymore?
    I sure have a hard time trying to find a label "Made in America." I actually cried when Levi Jeans threw in the towel. They came up with the concept of "jeans" during the California gold rush days, and Levi saw that they would sell. They invented the word jeans, and they were an honest American icon. Now they're gone, like so many other industries that used to employ our workers. Sad....

    Ironically, there are many men's clothiers whose apparel is still made in the USA, from t-shirts to jackets to other items. Woolrich has been in business since 1830 - they made blankets during the Civil War - and they still make the best outdoor shirts and jackets for men that I have ever seen. They're woolen, they're soft, they look good, and they are very well made. They're a bit pricey, but they last forever. That what I've always bought as gifts for the male members of my family, and they LOVE them! I'm doing my part for our economy.

  5. #195
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Why are we trying to measure who is trying to get a job, versus those who don't? I don't understand that reasoning.
    Because we want to know how much available labor is not being used. Someone not trying to work is not available for work.


    Is the thinking that people are basically lazy, and need to be prodded into looking for a job? If that's the case, then someone who visits a company or two during the week and gets a confirmation that they were indeed there, is trying? Or someone who sends their resume to 25 companies is trying?
    If someone does something that could get them a job and fails, that tells us something. Someone who doesn't do anything to get a job doesn't tell us anything when they don't.

    The old rules always excluded the pregnant and the ill, which covered the "available for work" part.
    But why would you exclude them if they want a job? Or if they quit looking? What difference is there as far as likelihood to be hired between someone who cannot work and someone just not trying to?

    Some of the rules changed during the Clinton administration, probably because of NAFTA, so this isn't all new with Obama.
    From 1967-1993 the definition of Unemployed was "Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days."

    From 1994 on, the definition has been "Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."

    Labor Force was still Employed plus Unemployed and the UE rate was still Unemployed divided by Labor Force.


    I believe the "labor force participation rate" is newly defined by Obama, though.
    Why do you believe that? Do you really think Obama was defining anything in 1975? Table A-1 of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd...ews_197502.pdf

    Job loss has certainly increased since then - no unemployed workers today would dispute that!
    Except the number of employed and the number of jobs has been going steadily up for a few years now.

    Regarding your last paragraph: With the two exceptions I listed above, which were in the old rules, I believe that if you had a job and you no longer have a job, for whatever reason, then yes you are unemployed. There will always be those who will attempt to beat the system, so what else is new? It's human nature for some, I guess. You could show up for an interview for a job you don't want, dressed like a slob and smelling bad, but you've tried, right? Is that good enough to satisfy the new rules?
    So a teenager looking for his/her first job is what? And if someone had a job years ago, but stayed home with the kids for 10 years and is now looking for a job....have they been unemployed the whole time? And why do you make an exception for retirees when they match your description. Or someone who decides they don't want/need a job.

    First, you're really confused about "old method," Did you even spot the tiny difference between before 1994 and after? One minor change to the unemployment definition in 1994. There were a lot of other changes, mostly in questionnaire design, computerization and big redefinitions of "part time for economic reasons" and "discouraged worker."

    Your attempts at definitions are sloppy and have no coherency. WHY are you making the distinctions. I told you the actual reason: People not trying to work will not get hired. We know this. So why do you think they are as likely to get hired as someone looking for work or more likely to get hired as someone who is retired or pregnant or doesn't want a job?
    Last edited by pinqy; 10-31-14 at 03:11 PM.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  6. #196
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Stop the lies. Obama and the democrats never give the truth. They always try to make it look not as bad as it really is. Try looking at real unemployment

    Laid Off? Join 31 million unemployed Americans - UCubed — Blog — The Real Unemployment Rate
    what is their definition of Unemployed and where did they get their numbers from? And why do you think they are more accurate except that they match what you want the numbers to be?
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  7. #197
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Excellent work, Pol ... but you know it won't bring an end to this, don't you?
    Greetings, bubba.

    I really don't know why I bother, except it's my attempt to figure out the current thinking. We know that Clinton changed the rules because it was almost a certainty that unemployment would rise after he signed NAFTA - and it did. It was touted as a job maker for Americans at the time, if you recall, but Ross Perot knew better because he was a businessman, and he made his famous comment about the sucking sound of jobs leaving our shores.

    I believe that the simple truth still applies: 1. You have no job now. 2. You are available for work now. 3. You have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. Using the K.I.S.S. principle was easy, but now there's all sorts of "what ifs" throw in which are totally unnecessary because everything was handled by the above. Now, if you're looking for work, you're no longer unemployed? Huh? People have never told a lie I guess. Anyway, using that criteria the unemployment number drops, which was what it was intended to do. Unfortunately it's not accurate, but that's reality today.

    Fortunately, there are people who track these things, and when they tell us that the real unemployment numbers are nearly double what is being reported, with the black youth numbers nearly triple what is reported, I believe them!

  8. #198
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    GreetiWe know that Clinton changed the rules
    Except he didn't as I already proved and you've ignored. The questionnaire was computerized and one minor definition change regarding people waiting to start a job.

    I believe that the simple truth still applies: 1. You have no job now. 2. You are available for work now. 3. You have actively looked for work in the past four weeks.
    THAT IS THE CURRENT DEFINITION!!!!! Employment Situation Technical Note
    "People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
    they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
    that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
    4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
    expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
    unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
    eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.


    Now, if you're looking for work, you're no longer unemployed?
    What???? Where did you get that nonsense?
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  9. #199
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,257

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Greetings, bubba.

    I really don't know why I bother, except it's my attempt to figure out the current thinking. We know that Clinton changed the rules because it was almost a certainty that unemployment would rise after he signed NAFTA - and it did. It was touted as a job maker for Americans at the time, if you recall, but Ross Perot knew better because he was a businessman, and he made his famous comment about the sucking sound of jobs leaving our shores.

    I believe that the simple truth still applies: 1. You have no job now. 2. You are available for work now. 3. You have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. Using the K.I.S.S. principle was easy, but now there's all sorts of "what ifs" throw in which are totally unnecessary because everything was handled by the above. Now, if you're looking for work, you're no longer unemployed? Huh? People have never told a lie I guess. Anyway, using that criteria the unemployment number drops, which was what it was intended to do. Unfortunately it's not accurate, but that's reality today.

    Fortunately, there are people who track these things, and when they tell us that the real unemployment numbers are nearly double what is being reported, with the black youth numbers nearly triple what is reported, I believe them!
    Told Ya.

  10. #200
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,710

    Re: AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Our side isn't afraid to be honest that we're probably staring defeat in the face.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •