• 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

ToastyOats said:
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!".
Click to expand...

He is staying from senators and is doing stops for governors. Twice in the last week or 2 people have walked out on him
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

What President wants the true unemployment number advertised? The people who track these things have it between 13 to 14 percent at the moment! Couple that with the fact that many of the employed are working part-time jobs - some of them with more than one part-time job just to pay their bills - and the picture gets worse.

I understand that no one here would want to work for $5.00 a day, like many around the world do, so where does that leave us? Unemployed and having to rely on the government for help to survive! I can't blame them - in most cases it's not their fault. They're willing to work. Wouldn't it make sense to copy what FDR did, and put them to work on things that benefit everyone, like getting our grid into the 21st century, as an example? As it stands, we are sitting ducks for failure due to natural disasters or man-made ones, like terrorism. When the inevitable happens, as it undoubtedly will, what excuse will be made - we can't say we weren't warned by experts! :thumbdown:
 
ToastyOats said:
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!".
Click to expand...

I was talking about his radio interview with Al Sharpton saying how this election was all about his policies.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

What President wants the true unemployment number advertised? The people who track these things have it between 13 to 14 percent at the moment! Couple that with the fact that many of the employed are working part-time jobs - some of them with more than one part-time job just to pay their bills - and the picture gets worse.

I understand that no one here would want to work for $5.00 a day, like many around the world do, so where does that leave us? Unemployed and having to rely on the government for help to survive! I can't blame them - in most cases it's not their fault. They're willing to work. Wouldn't it make sense to copy what FDR did, and put them to work on things that benefit everyone, like getting our grid into the 21st century, as an example? As it stands, we are sitting ducks for failure due to natural disasters or man-made ones, like terrorism. When the inevitable happens, as it undoubtedly will, what excuse will be made - we can't say we weren't warned by experts! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

I agree, FDR never did hand outs. He created his 3 letter alphabet soups like the WPA, CCC, TVA etc and put people to work earning the money the government gave them. But supposedly we have progressed so far that making people work for their money is considered beneath their dignity.
 
Perotista said:
I agree, FDR never did hand outs. He created his 3 letter alphabet soups like the WPA, CCC, TVA etc and put people to work earning the money the government gave them. But supposedly we have progressed so far that making people work for their money is considered beneath their dignity.
Click to expand...

Pero, I'd hate to think my parents raised me wrong, because I know they did not! Not only did they teach me that working for what you wanted was the correct thing to do in order to have self respect, but I was expected to have good manners too - and I raised my children the same way! WTH happened along the way? :shock:
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...
But, like I said, we're talking about what the Democrats could campaign on. Like others, I get the feeling you think I'm trying to make an argument to get people to vote for a Democrat. I'm not. I'm talking about how the Democrats should have campaigned, but didn't.

I would however argue that while they do get DADT they also took away peoples rights.
Click to expand...
While I'm going to disagree with the next part of what you say, even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact they still had advanced civil rights (in one way). Thus they should have campaigned on how they have advanced civil rights.

1: By allowing the NSA to continue on with what they've been doing to the American People, violating their privacy rights.
Click to expand...
Allowing something which has been happening for the past 10-15 years doesn't constitute taking away rights.

2: By Obamacare's mandate which took away peoples right to choose to not buy a product from a private company.
Click to expand...
It didn't though. If you choose not to have health insurance, you can still not have health insurance. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything from a private company.

Those two combined outweigh any good that repealing of DADT did imo.
Click to expand...
Regardless of any dispute we may have over the legitimacy of your complaints, it wouldn't change the fact we are talking about campaigning, not if one party is better than another.

I hope that makes sense.
ptif219 said:
Stop the lies.
Click to expand...
I have not lied to you once. I've used official statistics.
People that stop looking did not retire they could not find work.
Click to expand...
Umm, MANY people have retired who still had jobs. For example, my father and his wife. My mother come July 2015.

Roughly half of the people who have dropped out of the labor force (which has been declining for a long time, mind you) in the last few years have done so due to retirement. It's not a lie, it's just a truth.

Retirement is not included in labor participation that was breaking records and just came down
Click to expand...
I know retirement is not included in labor participation. That's the point. People who retire are not included in the labor force participation because they are not working nor are they looking for work. Thus, when a significant portion of the population chooses not to work because of retirement, the labor force participation rate drops.

This is basic math.

You ignore my links that use BLS statistics. From the hot air link
Click to expand...
No, I haven't ignored it at all. I've acknowledged it and explained it. Pinqy has explained it multiple times to you as well.

The fact is more people are working now than before. It's just a fact, a fact straight from the BLS. Yes, labor force participation is down, but the number of discouraged workers (those who do not have a job and have given up looking) has dropped in half. Again, this is straight from the BLS. Roughly half of the people who have dropped out of the labor force have been retirees (with stay at home spouses, people going back to college, etc. also impacting the rating). No one is disputing with you there have been some people who are not counted as unemployed because they've given up looking for work because they don't believe they can find a job. But what I AM saying is the number of those people has dropped in half, again as stated by the BLS.

Now I realize I'm probably spending way too much time explaining something you have no interest in hearing because it conflicts with what you want to believe, but just because you wish to stick your head in the sand, it doesn't change the fact it is all a complete truth.
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except the unemployment rate doesn't get revised on a monthly basis, so you are clearly not speaking from knowledge.

Then as pointed out, the unemployment rate is not really an unemployment rate, it is just the rate of people unemployed looking for jobs.
Click to expand...
Unemployed has always been defined as those not working who are trying to work. Nobody has ever counted retirees, stay home spouses, disabled, or students or anyone else not trying to work as unemployed.

it can fall when there are more unemployed added to it without a corresponding number being hired
Click to expand...
No, that can't happen. The only way the rate can go down when the number of unemployed goes up is if employed goes up by more.

[To me the unemployment rate should be total work force available minus all those who are not working.[/quote]
That's not a rate. But in any case the unemployment rate IS the number of people available for work but not working divided by everyone available for work. So I'm glad you agree.
 
ptif219 said:
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
Or fewer people started looking. There are more people looking for work now than there were 6 years ago, and more people working. But as a percent of the population, it's lower.
 
ptif219 said:
Stop the lies. People that stop looking did not retire they could not find work.
Click to expand...
That's minority reason for not looking for work. Here's the breakdown:A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
We're looking at the Marginally Attached: those who looked for work in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks who want a job and could accept a job if offered. 2,226,000
Of those, only 698,000 say they stopped looking because they believed that they would be unsuccessful.
 
Slyfox696 said:
But, like I said, we're talking about what the Democrats could campaign on. Like others, I get the feeling you think I'm trying to make an argument to get people to vote for a Democrat. I'm not. I'm talking about how the Democrats should have campaigned, but didn't.

While I'm going to disagree with the next part of what you say, even if it were true, it wouldn't change the fact they still had advanced civil rights (in one way). Thus they should have campaigned on how they have advanced civil rights.

Allowing something which has been happening for the past 10-15 years doesn't constitute taking away rights.

It didn't though. If you choose not to have health insurance, you can still not have health insurance. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything from a private company.

Regardless of any dispute we may have over the legitimacy of your complaints, it wouldn't change the fact we are talking about campaigning, not if one party is better than another.

I hope that makes sense.
I have not lied to you once. I've used official statistics.
Umm, MANY people have retired who still had jobs. For example, my father and his wife. My mother come July 2015.

Roughly half of the people who have dropped out of the labor force (which has been declining for a long time, mind you) in the last few years have done so due to retirement. It's not a lie, it's just a truth.

I know retirement is not included in labor participation. That's the point. People who retire are not included in the labor force participation because they are not working nor are they looking for work. Thus, when a significant portion of the population chooses not to work because of retirement, the labor force participation rate drops.

This is basic math.

No, I haven't ignored it at all. I've acknowledged it and explained it. Pinqy has explained it multiple times to you as well.

The fact is more people are working now than before. It's just a fact, a fact straight from the BLS. Yes, labor force participation is down, but the number of discouraged workers (those who do not have a job and have given up looking) has dropped in half. Again, this is straight from the BLS. Roughly half of the people who have dropped out of the labor force have been retirees (with stay at home spouses, people going back to college, etc. also impacting the rating). No one is disputing with you there have been some people who are not counted as unemployed because they've given up looking for work because they don't believe they can find a job. But what I AM saying is the number of those people has dropped in half, again as stated by the BLS.

Now I realize I'm probably spending way too much time explaining something you have no interest in hearing because it conflicts with what you want to believe, but just because you wish to stick your head in the sand, it doesn't change the fact it is all a complete truth.
Click to expand...
Stop with Obama talking points There have been no jobs. Most jobs were part time jobs

The Workforce Part-Time Employment Ratio: Looking Better for the Core Age Group
 
pinqy said:
Or fewer people started looking. There are more people looking for work now than there were 6 years ago, and more people working. But as a percent of the population, it's lower.
Click to expand...

Show proof
 
polgara said:
Pero, I'd hate to think my parents raised me wrong, because I know they did not! Not only did they teach me that working for what you wanted was the correct thing to do in order to have self respect, but I was expected to have good manners too - and I raised my children the same way! WTH happened along the way? :shock:
Click to expand...

That is a good question. I do not know the answer but the society of today is completely different than when we grew up. I for one do not think it is for the better.
 
pinqy said:
That's minority reason for not looking for work. Here's the breakdown:A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex
We're looking at the Marginally Attached: those who looked for work in the last 12 months but not the last 4 weeks who want a job and could accept a job if offered. 2,226,000
Of those, only 698,000 say they stopped looking because they believed that they would be unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

If they are not doing it through the government it is not counted

What a BS chart. There are millions not working and they have less than 100,000?

you don't like the participation figures but it is millions not in labor force
 
ptif219 said:
If they are not doing it through the government it is not counted
Click to expand...
huh? If who is not doing what through the government what's not counted?

What a BS chart. There are millions not working and they have less than 100,000?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. You did see that the numbers are in thousands, right?

you don't like the participation figures but it is millions not in labor force
Click to expand...
Right.
92,453,000. And 86,536,000 don't want a job.
Only 698,000 "gave up looking" in the last year.
 
pinqy said:
Except the unemployment rate doesn't get revised on a monthly basis, so you are clearly not speaking from knowledge.


Unemployed has always been defined as those not working who are trying to work. Nobody has ever counted retirees, stay home spouses, disabled, or students or anyone else not trying to work as unemployed.


No, that can't happen. The only way the rate can go down when the number of unemployed goes up is if employed goes up by more.

[To me the unemployment rate should be total work force available minus all those who are not working.
Click to expand...
That's not a rate. But in any case the unemployment rate IS the number of people available for work but not working divided by everyone available for work. So I'm glad you agree.[/QUOTE]

You telling me they do not revise the month employment rates. I think you better tell that to the news stations. I keep hearing them report in October the the monthly revised unemployment rate is so and so for September. Now I think it is you who does not know what you are talking about. Either that or all these years the newspapers, TV news and on the radio have been filling the airways with propaganda.

Now I really do not know about you, who in the world said one should count retirees? Or full time students? ETC. Etc. If a person loses his job even if he stops looking for a job and he is not retired, a student etc. etc., he still should be counted.

Now here again, I have heard on the news that although more people were hired this month than lost their jobs this month, the unemployment rose a tenth of a point because a lot of those who stopped looking for work started looking again. So why weren't those people counted as unemployed to begin with. Government playing with number which in reality do not mean a thing if this is the case.
1. you are either unemployed, out of work or you are working. That seems pretty darn simple to me, not counting retirees which should be taken out of the pool, full time students never should be added, etc. etc. etc.
 
pinqy said:
huh? If who is not doing what through the government what's not counted?


No it doesn't. You did see that the numbers are in thousands, right?


Right.
92,453,000. And 86,536,000 don't want a job.
Only 698,000 "gave up looking" in the last year.
Click to expand...

I still call the government figures BS If you are not looking for work through the state unemployment office you are not counted.

Just like real unemployment is never discussed by liberals

Laid Off? Join 31 million unemployed Americans - UCubed — Blog — The Real Unemployment Rate
 
ptif219 said:
I still call the government figures BS If you are not looking for work through the state unemployment office you are not counted.
Click to expand...
Where on Earth did you get that idea from????????
Is that what you do: just decide something is true without caring about reality?
 
pinqy said:
Where on Earth did you get that idea from????????
Is that what you do: just decide something is true without caring about reality?
Click to expand...

Then explain what is used to decide who is looking and who is not
 
pinqy said:
So, you just blindly accept what a blog says without any idea what their definitions, methodology, or anything is?
Click to expand...

it is more accurate than the government low ball figure
 
ptif219 said:
Then explain what is used to decide who is looking and who is not
Click to expand...

No, first, please tell me why you thought only people who went through state agencies were considered unemployed and why you would state that as a fact.

I'm always curious where people get these strange ideas, but no one ever wants to answer.
Did you just decide that must be true based on nothing?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom