• 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!

AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November

ptif219 said:
Why should I when you ignore the facts
Click to expand...
There's only one person ignoring facts and it's you. I've presented facts multiple times. Your only response has been to call the facts "Obama talking points" and then quote sources which use the same facts I present.

But I don't blame you for not trying...after all, you have been completely wrong.
 
Slyfox696 said:
There's only one person ignoring facts and it's you. I've presented facts multiple times. Your only response has been to call the facts "Obama talking points" and then quote sources which use the same facts I present.

But I don't blame you for not trying...after all, you have been completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I have proven you wrong and shown unemployment went down due to people that stopped looking not because of the part time jobs we get because of Obama policies
 
ptif219 said:
That is crap. The reason is there are no jobs that you can support a family on. When 70% of the jobs created are part time that does not help
Click to expand...

Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.
And what is your support for your claim? I'll warn you that in July, there was a big drop in full time workers, but that was made up in August and September. So a cite from August is out of date.
 
pinqy said:
Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.
And what is your support for your claim? I'll warn you that in July, there was a big drop in full time workers, but that was made up in August and September. So a cite from August is out of date.
Click to expand...

You can stop making stipulations and excuses for Obama. His including part time numbers and not counting those no longer looking gives a false view anyway

If you read this you will see how Obama is deceiving you

September jobs report – 248,000 jobs added, 5.9% unemployment rate « Hot Air
 
ptif219 said:
You can stop making stipulations and excuses for Obama. His including part time numbers and not counting those no longer looking gives a false view anyway
Click to expand...
Wait, are you claiming that Obama personally calculates the numbers or decides the methodology???? Or that he's changed the methodology?

If you read this you will see how Obama is deceiving you

September jobs report – 248,000 jobs added, 5.9% unemployment rate « Hot Air
Click to expand...
There's nothing in there about anyone deceiving anyone. It also points out the increases in full time employment.
 
pinqy said:
Wait, are you claiming that Obama personally calculates the numbers or decides the methodology???? Or that he's changed the methodology?


There's nothing in there about anyone deceiving anyone. It also points out the increases in full time employment.
Click to expand...

So you only read what was good for Obama
Left unmentioned in the BLS press release was that, on a seasonally-adjusted basis, there were 236,000 more private-sector jobs in September than in August. Also unmentioned – the U-5 rate, which includes those who want to work and last looked for work between mid-September 2013 and mid-August 2014, went down from 7.4% to 7.3%, while the U-6 rate, which includes those working part-time due to economic conditions in addition to those included in the U-5 rate, went down from 12.0% to 11.8%.

The “little” change in the seasonally-adjusted labor force particpation, a rounded 0.1 percentage point drop, means that the seasonally-adjusted participation rate for September is now lower than it was every month since February 1978, when it was also 62.7%. While there were 232,000 more people working in September than in August, more than the 217,000 increase in the civilian non-instutional population, there were 97,000 fewer people in the labor force.

Nearly half of those workforce dropouts, 45,000, became the increase in the number of those who want a job but are not part of the labor force. That number is now 6,349,000, with nearly 2/3rds of the uncounted unemployed last looking for work over a year ago.

Over the past year, 2,683,000 jobs were added on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis, 393,000 more than the growth in the civilian non-institutional population. However, over the same past year, only 12,000 more people gained employment, also on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis, than were added to the civilian non-institutional population.
Click to expand...
 
ptif219 said:
So you only read what was good for Obama
Click to expand...
Why would I care about what's good for Obama???
Left unmentioned in the BLS press release was that, on a seasonally-adjusted basis, there were 236,000 more private-sector jobs in September than in August. Also unmentioned – the U-5 rate, which includes those who want to work and last looked for work between mid-September 2013 and mid-August 2014, went down from 7.4% to 7.3%, while the U-6 rate, which includes those working part-time due to economic conditions in addition to those included in the U-5 rate, went down from 12.0% to 11.8%.
Click to expand...
Well, that's all positive news, not sure what you find deceptive.
I'm not sure why the article says "left unmentioned in the BLS press release" when they got all that info from the press release.
The “little” change in the seasonally-adjusted labor force particpation, a rounded 0.1 percentage point drop, means that the seasonally-adjusted participation rate for September is now lower than it was every month since February 1978, when it was also 62.7%. While there were 232,000 more people working in September than in August, more than the 217,000 increase in the civilian non-instutional population, there were 97,000 fewer people in the labor force.

Nearly half of those workforce dropouts, 45,000, became the increase in the number of those who want a job but are not part of the labor force. That number is now 6,349,000, with nearly 2/3rds of the uncounted unemployed last looking for work over a year ago.

Over the past year, 2,683,000 jobs were added on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis, 393,000 more than the growth in the civilian non-institutional population. However, over the same past year, only 12,000 more people gained employment, also on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis, than were added to the civilian non-institutional population.
Click to expand...
Again, all in the press release. What are you claiming is deceptive and what do you think Obama has to do with calculating or anything at xxx all to do with the data?
 
pinqy said:
Why would I care about what's good for Obama???

Well, that's all positive news, not sure what you find deceptive.
I'm not sure why the article says "left unmentioned in the BLS press release" when they got all that info from the press release.

Again, all in the press release. What are you claiming is deceptive and what do you think Obama has to do with calculating or anything at xxx all to do with the data?
Click to expand...

The so called job growth is not keeping up with population growth or those retiring so there is no gain for the unemployed and the labor participation is still at a bad place

From my link

there were 97,000 fewer people in the labor force.
Over the past year, 2,683,000 jobs were added on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis, 393,000 more than the growth in the civilian non-institutional population. However, over the same past year, only 12,000 more people gained employment,
Click to expand...
 
Slyfox696 said:
Much as I did not understand the GOP's strategy in 2012, I do not understand the Democratic strategy now. Why they are not pounding the successes of the last 6 years (growing economy, more jobs, lower deficits, advancement of civil rights, etc.) is beyond me. It's like they are so terrified to run on their own record of successes.

They deserve to lose this election based on terrible campaigning.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry...advancements of civil rights? What advancements were these? The only advancements in civil rights that i've seen is in the SSM area and those are due to court decisions....not legislative decisions.
 
ptif219 said:
I have proven you wrong and shown unemployment went down due to people that stopped looking
Click to expand...
And I have proven that assertion wrong by showing you more people are working now than they were in January 2009. Pinqy showed you the same thing. I also showed that assertion wrong as I linked you to the data which shows the number of discouraged workers has dropped in half. Finally, I already told you that so many of those who left the labor force did so because of retirement, not because they stopped looking.

When I show you all of this and cite the SAME SOURCE you use for labor participation rate, you call them Obama talking points. Thus the partisanship from you.
Kal'Stang said:
I'm sorry...advancements of civil rights? What advancements were these?
Click to expand...
Question asked....
The only advancements in civil rights that i've seen is in the SSM area
Click to expand...
...question answered.

Only it wasn't just same sex marriage, it was gay rights in general. For example, DADT is no longer in effect.

and those are due to court decisions....not legislative decisions.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything (ignoring for a moment DADT was a legislative process)? You do understand the point, right? The point is to draw attention to all the advancements that have happened while the party was in power.
 
ptif219 said:
The so called job growth is not keeping up with population growth or those retiring so there is no gain for the unemployed and the labor participation is still at a bad place

From my link
Click to expand...
Your link contradicts your claim. If the number of people who gained employment is higher than the population growth, then that's more than keeping up with population growth. The Employment Population ratio (percent of the population working) has gone up over the last year. Not a lot...but a nice reversal.

The Labor Force Participation is the percent of employed AND unemployed in the population. The labor force has gone up over the last year and while the number not in the labor force but wants a job has gone up some (+232,000) those who do not want a job has gone up a lot more (+1,679,000)

In short....the reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is because fewer people want to work.
 
ptif219 said:
It means more people than ever are not working
Click to expand...


Yes, it does mean more people than ever are not working. But, you are trying to sell that as a "bad thing" and its not.

Why it "doesn't mean what you think it means" is because 95% of that number is comprised of retired persons drawing social security, stay at home moms, full-time college students and people collecting disability. (http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=not+in+the+labor+force)

So, unless you think that Grandma needs to get off her duff and get a waitressing job.... I argue that, in general, a growth in people not in the workforce is evidence of a good economy (that people can afford to not have a job)...

Now, in fairness to our good friends on the right, its no wonder they are confused..... many of them frequent political porn cites that feed them half truths just so they can get it up... you, know, their blood pressure. Take this article on CNS, the Conservative New Service, news filtered for Conservative "understanding"

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/95-million-people-have-left-workforce-under-obama

The primary point of the article is to tell us how the unemployment number is suspect because so many have left the labor force. There is only a superficial explanation of the NILF number (which they point out includes so-called discouraged workers)

Contrast that with real news that actually attempts to explain the NILF number and why it is changing (without drawing full conclusions)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...why-are-people-dropping-out-of-the-workforce/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-at-36-year-low-even-as-more-jobs-beckon.html

So, there is a small portion of the NILF number that does connote economic weakness and a large portion (those that retire) that shows strength. The aggregate NILF number, however, is just a number.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
Only it wasn't just same sex marriage, it was gay rights in general. For example, DADT is no longer in effect.

What does that have to do with anything (ignoring for a moment DADT was a legislative process)? You do understand the point, right? The point is to draw attention to all the advancements that have happened while the party was in power.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten about DADT. I'll give you that one. But claiming "victory" for a party for something that they had no involvement in making happen, SSM, is deceitful at best and is one of the many reasons why I hate the party system.

I would however argue that while they do get DADT they also took away peoples rights. 1: By allowing the NSA to continue on with what they've been doing to the American People, violating their privacy rights. 2: By Obamacare's mandate which took away peoples right to choose to not buy a product from a private company. Those two combined outweigh any good that repealing of DADT did imo.
 
Slyfox696 said:
And I have proven that assertion wrong by showing you more people are working now than they were in January 2009. Pinqy showed you the same thing. I also showed that assertion wrong as I linked you to the data which shows the number of discouraged workers has dropped in half. Finally, I already told you that so many of those who left the labor force did so because of retirement, not because they stopped looking.

When I show you all of this and cite the SAME SOURCE you use for labor participation rate, you call them Obama talking points. Thus the partisanship from you.
Question asked....
...question answered.

Only it wasn't just same sex marriage, it was gay rights in general. For example, DADT is no longer in effect.

What does that have to do with anything (ignoring for a moment DADT was a legislative process)? You do understand the point, right? The point is to draw attention to all the advancements that have happened while the party was in power.
Click to expand...

Stop the lies. People that stop looking did not retire they could not find work. Retirement is not included in labor participation that was breaking records and just came down

You ignore my links that use BLS statistics. From the hot air link

The “little” change in the seasonally-adjusted labor force particpation, a rounded 0.1 percentage point drop, means that the seasonally-adjusted participation rate for September is now lower than it was every month since February 1978, when it was also 62.7%. While there were 232,000 more people working in September than in August, more than the 217,000 increase in the civilian non-instutional population, there were 97,000 fewer people in the labor force.
Click to expand...
 
pinqy said:
Your link contradicts your claim. If the number of people who gained employment is higher than the population growth, then that's more than keeping up with population growth. The Employment Population ratio (percent of the population working) has gone up over the last year. Not a lot...but a nice reversal.

The Labor Force Participation is the percent of employed AND unemployed in the population. The labor force has gone up over the last year and while the number not in the labor force but wants a job has gone up some (+232,000) those who do not want a job has gone up a lot more (+1,679,000)

In short....the reason the labor force participation rate is dropping is because fewer people want to work.
Click to expand...

Not enough to matter since the labor participation rate is still close to 1978 levels

The “little” change in the seasonally-adjusted labor force particpation, a rounded 0.1 percentage point drop, means that the seasonally-adjusted participation rate for September is now lower than it was every month since February 1978, when it was also 62.7%. While there were 232,000 more people working in September than in August, more than the 217,000 increase in the civilian non-instutional population, there were 97,000 fewer people in the labor force.
 
upsideguy said:
Yes, it does mean more people than ever are not working. But, you are trying to sell that as a "bad thing" and its not.

Why it "doesn't mean what you think it means" is because 95% of that number is comprised of retired persons drawing social security, stay at home moms, full-time college students and people collecting disability. (AmosWEB is Economics: Encyclonomic WEB*pedia)

So, unless you think that Grandma needs to get off her duff and get a waitressing job.... I argue that, in general, a growth in people not in the workforce is evidence of a good economy (that people can afford to not have a job)...

Now, in fairness to our good friends on the right, its no wonder they are confused..... many of them frequent political porn cites that feed them half truths just so they can get it up... you, know, their blood pressure. Take this article on CNS, the Conservative New Service, news filtered for Conservative "understanding"

9.5 Million People Have Left the Workforce Under Obama | CNS News

The primary point of the article is to tell us how the unemployment number is suspect because so many have left the labor force. There is only a superficial explanation of the NILF number (which they point out includes so-called discouraged workers)

Contrast that with real news that actually attempts to explain the NILF number and why it is changing (without drawing full conclusions)

The biggest question facing the U.S. economy: Why are people dropping out of the workforce? - The Washington Post
Workforce Participation at 36-Year Low as Jobs Climb - Bloomberg

So, there is a small portion of the NILF number that does connote economic weakness and a large portion (those that retire) that shows strength. The aggregate NILF number, however, is just a number.
Click to expand...

The CNS link shows it is not about retired people it does not say what you claim. from that link

9.5 million Americans have left the workforce during the presidency of Barack Obama, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In April, the total number of Americans counted as "not in the labor force" declined for the first time since December, but that number was still near a record high at 89,936,000.

Those not in the labor force declined by 31,000, from a record high of 89,967,000 in March. That broke the recent record of 89,304,000 not in the labor force in February of this year.

Since February 2009, the first full month of Obama’s presidency, 9,549,000 people have left the labor force. There were 80,387,000 Americans not working that month, compared with 89,936,000 not working or looking today, according to the latest economic release from BLS.
Click to expand...

Yor other 2 links try to dumb it down but fail.
 
ptif219 said:
Not enough to matter since the labor participation rate is still close to 1978 levels
Click to expand...
You keep repeating and repeating the participation rate. What do you think it measures and why do you consider it so important?

[qutoe]The “little” change in the seasonally-adjusted labor force particpation, a rounded 0.1 percentage point drop, means that the seasonally-adjusted participation rate for September is now lower than it was every month since February 1978, when it was also 62.7%. [/quote]
And higher than every month before Feb 1978. But we've known for decades that the participation rate would go down in the early 21st century. The recession made it worse, but it's no surprise.

While there were 232,000 more people working in September than in August, more than the 217,000 increase in the civilian non-instutional population, there were 97,000 fewer people in the labor force.
Click to expand...
Yes...fewer people trying to find work. The number of people who did not want a job went up 270,000
 
pinqy said:
You keep repeating and repeating the participation rate. What do you think it measures and why do you consider it so important?

[qutoe]The “little” change in the seasonally-adjusted labor force particpation, a rounded 0.1 percentage point drop, means that the seasonally-adjusted participation rate for September is now lower than it was every month since February 1978, when it was also 62.7%.
Click to expand...
And higher than every month before Feb 1978. But we've known for decades that the participation rate would go down in the early 21st century. The recession made it worse, but it's no surprise.


Yes...fewer people trying to find work. The number of people who did not want a job went up 270,000[/QUOTE]

It shows the lies of the unemployment figures. During the last 6 years more people have stopped looking for work than got jobs. Unemployment has gone down because people stopped looking for work not because of jobs
 
ptif219 said:
The CNS link shows it is not about retired people it does not say what you claim. from that link



Yor other 2 links try to dumb it down but fail.
Click to expand...

Excuse me... you have missed the point entirely. I blasted the CNS link as withholding the whole story and only trying incite (which you are once again a victim of) and contrasted it to two stories that attempted to explain (unlike the CNS story) what was going on with the change in NILF number. The CNS story was dumbed down for Conservative consumption (facts that you can use to hammer Obama without any explanation of the facts)
 
upsideguy said:
Excuse me... you have missed the point entirely. I blasted the CNS link as withholding the whole story and only trying incite (which you are once again a victim of) and contrasted it to two stories that attempted to explain (unlike the CNS story) what was going on with the change in NILF number. The CNS story was dumbed down for Conservative consumption (facts that you can use to hammer Obama without any explanation of the facts)
Click to expand...

That is crap. The fact that unemployment goes down because people stop looking shows how deceptive the numbers are. September was the first time since 2008n that was not the case
 
ptif219 said:
That is crap. The fact that unemployment goes down because people stop looking shows how deceptive the numbers are. September was the first time since 2008n that was not the case
Click to expand...

" Its crap" because its contrary to your world view and what you want believe (you want something to hammer Obama with)..... yes, within the NILF number, there are things to hammer Obama with, but the NILF number, which you apparently do not understand or want to understand, is not it. If you continue to use the NILF number in aggregate as something of significance in supporting your case, I will continue to hammer you with being ignorant of the components of the number.

If you want to sharpen you debate game, I would recommend getting a better handle on the material you wish to discuss.
 
tres borrachos said:
The man seems determined to interject himself and make this election about him, no matter how hard some of his party's candidates are trying to avoid him at all costs. He epitomizes arrogance.
Click to expand...

What? Obama has barely campaigned at all for Democrats. And when he does it's for blue state Dems, I don't see him in Arkansas.

Republicans on the other hand have a much greater effort to make this election a referendum on Obama, much more so than the man himself. They've made a habit of running with lines like "This Democrat has voted with Obama 98% of the time!", and "We have to end the Obama- (insert Dem) agenda!".
 
upsideguy said:
" Its crap" because its contrary to your world view and what you want believe (you want something to hammer Obama with)..... yes, within the NILF number, there are things to hammer Obama with, but the NILF number, which you apparently do not understand or want to understand, is not it. If you continue to use the NILF number in aggregate as something of significance in supporting your case, I will continue to hammer you with being ignorant of the components of the number.

If you want to sharpen you debate game, I would recommend getting a better handle on the material you wish to discuss.
Click to expand...

I am usually one of those that do not pay attention to the unemployment rate. I know the government say it is this, then a month later they revise it which leads me to believe what the government releases the first doesn't mean anything.

Then as pointed out, the unemployment rate is not really an unemployment rate, it is just the rate of people unemployed looking for jobs. The fact that the unemployment rate can jump when more jobs are created and more people hired and it can fall when there are more unemployed added to it without a corresponding number being hired makes the unemployment rate something of a fantasy.

To me the unemployment rate should be total work force available minus all those who are not working. Anything else is close to being a lie. So why pay attention to something that is inherent untruthful from the beginning.

Except as you say to bash this president or that president.
 
upsideguy said:
" Its crap" because its contrary to your world view and what you want believe (you want something to hammer Obama with)..... yes, within the NILF number, there are things to hammer Obama with, but the NILF number, which you apparently do not understand or want to understand, is not it. If you continue to use the NILF number in aggregate as something of significance in supporting your case, I will continue to hammer you with being ignorant of the components of the number.

If you want to sharpen you debate game, I would recommend getting a better handle on the material you wish to discuss.
Click to expand...

You mean you will continue the Obama lies. This is the first time there has been more full time jobs than part time jobs. another words Obama and the BLS do not explain most jobs have been part time

The Workforce Part-Time Employment Ratio: Looking Better for the Core Age Group
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom