• 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!

Employment Situation 1 April 2016

DA60 said:
To call someone who is not employed and who wants a job and is legally able to work not only unemployed, but out of the labor force is asinine in the extremis (no offense) to me.
Click to expand...

Why should someone who's not looking for work be counted as unemployed? As I noted above, only 585K Americans are "discouraged workers" who want to work but don't think there's a job available for them.

More importantly, those people are captured in U-6, which is now under 10%. It reached 8% at the height of the housing bubble, and got to 7% at the end of 2000. It was more than 17% in the fall of 2009. So without something like the Information Revolution (and its dot.com bubble) or the very unstable housing bubble that led to the GOP SSE Great Recession, how much lower can it be expected to drop? Much below 9%?

Erod said:
Geez, complete delusion.
Click to expand...

In what sense, or are you simply refusing to accept reality?

>>Oh, never mind, you're about to nominate a felon.

Oliver North? He's a convicted felon. Secretary Clinton has not and will not be charged with any crime. Then the Right will say the fix is in. How convenient.
 
First let me note that you have not actually answered my question. I asked "WHY?' and "HOW WOULD IT BE MORE ACCURATE." You have not answered..you just assert that they should be classified as unemployed because they are unemployed. That's not an argument.

DA60 said:
Why should I waste my time trying to convince someone of something when I am TOTALLY convinced they are TOTALLY closed minded on that subject? That would be the very definition of wasted time, imo. I am not typing that to offend...I am typing it because that is exactly what I believe.
Click to expand...
I am completely open to hearing your arguments. But you're not making arguments...just assertions. And you don't back them up.

You say I am not open minded because I don't accept that BLS is totally corrupt and manipulating the data for political purposes. But you can't produce any evidence that this is true, nor can you even explain how it could be true. And it does not match my experience working there. So that's not me not being open minded, but you failing to state your case.


But because you seem a basically decent chap...I will say again (simplified)...if you are not employed and want a job and are legally able to work then you should be classified as unemployed...period.
Click to expand...

Why? Why is that a useful defintion?


Whether you are actively looking or not is TOTALLY irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You don't think it makes any difference as to whether a person could be hired?

Person A sends out resumes, fills out applications, goes to interviews, but there are just not enough jobs and he can't get hired.
Person B doesn't do anything to try to get a job and so does not get hired even though there are 10 job openings he could easily fill and he would be hired if he applied.

There is no difference between the two when trying to measure the health of the labor market? Really?


Nothing more needs to be said...it is staggeringly obvious to me.
Click to expand...
But not to any economist.

To call someone who is not employed and who desperately wants a job and is legally able to work but is not actively looking because there are no jobs available not only not unemployed, but out of the labor force is asinine in the extremis (no offense) to me.
Click to expand...
In what way are they in the labor force?

Let's say there was a physical labor market. You show up you may or may not get hired. You don't show up, you don't get hired. I want to know how many people could have been hired, but weren't. You're telling me that I should count people who didn't show up as a sign that hiring is difficult? How does that make sense?

If someone is not trying to get a job, why does it matter if they want one or not? There is no practical difference.

You continue to ignore WHY we're measuring unemployment....what we want to know. I don't need any data to know that someone not trying to work will not get hired.
 
mmi said:
reality?

>>Oh, never mind, you're about to nominate a felon.

Oliver North? He's a convicted felon. Secretary Clinton has not and will not be charged with any crime. .
Click to expand...

She should be, though. She has committed offenses that would get most people with a security clearance fired.
 
chuckiechan said:
After almost eight years obamanomics is beginning to produce results. I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
Click to expand...

You not noticing the results until now really only leaves one choice: laugh.
 
pinqy said:
She should be, though. She has committed offenses that would get most people with a security clearance fired.
Click to expand...

Which "offences"? And isn't there a difference between a fireable offence and a crime? Fwiw, Frump's campaign manager has been charged with battering a reporter, and he's still on the job.
 
DA60 said:
Overall...this looks like a generally solid report (from what I have seen of it).
Click to expand...

so you're not predicting a recession any more

DA60 said:
Recession 2.0: Abysmal Wholesale Sales Join Factory Orders In Confirming US Economic Contraction

Recession 2.0: Abysmal Wholesale Sales Join Factory Orders In Confirming US Economic Contraction | Zero Hedge
Click to expand...

and not for nothing DA, I don't think professional economists use zerohedge as a source.

DA60 said:
I learned that long ago...that is why people like him and mmi are on my Ignore List.

Life is too short to waste my time trying to reason with people who are INCREDIBLY closed minded on macroeconomics...I find it an exercise in frustration. That does not mean I have nothing in common with them on other subjects. But since I spend so much time on economic threads (since it is my profession), then I find ignoring closed minded people makes it much easier to navigate through the various macroeconomic threads.
I do not think they are 'bad' people - not at all...just ill-informed on this subject.
Click to expand...
 
Which "offences"? And isn't there a difference between a fireable offence and a crime? Fwiw, Frump's campaign manager has been charged with battering a reporter, and he's still on the job.
Click to expand...
Only because she demanded he buy her a pony to make it even, and he refused.
 
mmi said:
Which "offences"? And isn't there a difference between a fireable offence and a crime? Fwiw, Frump's campaign manager has been charged with battering a reporter, and he's still on the job.
Click to expand...

Mishandling of classified information. And one is usually fired for a criminal offense, regardless of whether charges are pursued. I have a friend who was fired because she was arrested for a crime, even though she was never prosecuted.
 
mmi said:
Secretary Clinton has not and will not be charged with any crime. Then the Right will say the fix is in. How convenient.
Click to expand...

If you don't think she's guilty, you are brainwashed beyond repair.
 
Erod said:
Geez, complete delusion.

How do you folks convince yourselves of these things.
Click to expand...
What was delusional about it? He posted job gains and the percent increase. Do you have a source which shows him to be wrong? If so, please post it. If not, how is he being delusional?

It seems pretty simple to me, either there have been job gains in various sectors of the economy, as his chart suggests, or has there not been, as you seem to be suggesting. Which is it?
 
chuckiechan said:
Only because she demanded he buy her a pony to make it even, and he refused.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I didn't notice anything about that in either the police report or the arrest warrant.

pinqy said:
Mishandling of classified information.
Click to expand...

Did she do that? She says she didn't. I'll wait for the outcome of the investigation.

>>And one is usually fired for a criminal offense, regardless of whether charges are pursued.

How do you know she committed this offence? I've heard there was classified information in some of her emails, but she says it wasn't classified at the time.
 
mmi said:
Hmm. I didn't notice anything about that in either the police report or the arrest warrant.



Did she do that? She says she didn't. I'll wait for the outcome of the investigation.

>>And one is usually fired for a criminal offense, regardless of whether charges are pursued.

How do you know she committed this offence? I've heard there was classified information in some of her emails, but she says it wasn't classified at the time.
Click to expand...
There was classified information on her system. There should not have been. That's mishandling classified.

Because information doesn't go from unclassified to classifed..that's not how it works and it would make no sense (with the exception that multiple pieces of information can be unclassified individually, but classified when associated with each other). And taking the markings off, or not using markings, doesn't make something unclassified.

There are also possible ethics violations in using a private server and email accounts to hide information from FOIA requests. It has been reported that Senator Clinton did not want to use the government provided unclassified computer, and requested permission to use her Blackberry (or an encrypted one similar to that owned by POTUS), though her request was denied.
 
pinqy said:
information doesn't go from unclassified to classifed..that's not how it works
Click to expand...

Well, I don't have a security clearance and I never worked at State, so I'll need to go by what's reported in the news. You could go with a lying, slug POS like Tucker Carlson:

Everyone in Washington knows, and it is a fact, that information is never retroactively classified. That's just not true. Ask anybody in the intel community. (video source see 1:43)​

Douchey nods vigorously and say's "That's right."

Or you might decide to go with institutions like NPR and WaPo:

The White House said after the release that the FBI had determined that previously unclassified material in the emails needed to be classified on later review; spokesman Josh Earnest said such a decision isn't uncommon. — "Some Clinton Emails Were Retroactively Classified," May 22, 2015​

So how could information sent on an unclassified system turn out to be "top secret"? The answer is easy — when State Department officials review it in response to a request for public release.

"State's upgrading process is retroactive,” said one congressional aide. “It's not a sign of wrongdoing but rather the normal process used by State under all administrations before unclassified documents are made public (usually via FOIA). Often an unclassified email will be retroactively classified to protect foreign and diplomatic communications, for example." — "How did 'top secret' emails end up on Hillary Clinton's server?" Feb 4, 2016​

My understanding is that a lot of these emails were from the traitor and established terrorist sympathizer, Sidney Blumenthal. My guess is that Clinton wanted to hide those communications from the reactionary pigs that have been after her and her husband for the last twenty-five years. My thought is that I wanted her to be able to get Blumenthal's unvarnished advice, without having to wonder if the sluts at Faux News or Judicial Wretch or some other right-wing lie-tank was gonna get at them.

Her server may have been hacked. Didn't Kerry say that State's system is frequently attacked as well, and may have been compromised? Is the gubmint's system any more secure?

>>There are also possible ethics violations in using a private server and email accounts to hide information from FOIA requests.

Was that her intent? People compare her situation to Petraeus's. My understanding is that he did intend to violate the law and that that's why he was charged.

>>It has been reported that Senator Clinton did not want to use the government provided unclassified computer, and requested permission to use her Blackberry (or an encrypted one similar to that owned by POTUS), though her request was denied.

That may be, but does that make her actions criminal?
 
Last edited:
:(
mmi said:
Well, I don't have a security clearance and I never worked at State, so I'll need to go by what's reported in the news. You could go with a lying, slug POS like Tucker Carlson:

Everyone in Washington knows, and it is a fact, that information is never retroactively classified. That's just not true. Ask anybody in the intel community. (video source see 1:43)​

Douchey nods vigorously and say's "That's right."

Or you might decide to go with institutions like NPR and WaPo:

The White House said after the release that the FBI had determined that previously unclassified material in the emails needed to be classified on later review; spokesman Josh Earnest said such a decision isn't uncommon. — "Some Clinton Emails Were Retroactively Classified," May 22, 2015​

So how could information sent on an unclassified system turn out to be "top secret"? The answer is easy — when State Department officials review it in response to a request for public release.

"State's upgrading process is retroactive,” said one congressional aide. “It's not a sign of wrongdoing but rather the normal process used by State under all administrations before unclassified documents are made public (usually via FOIA). Often an unclassified email will be retroactively classified to protect foreign and diplomatic communications, for example." — "How did 'top secret' emails end up on Hillary Clinton's server?" Feb 4, 2016​

My understanding is that a lot of these emails were from the traitor and established terrorist sympathizer, Sidney Blumenthal. My guess is that Clinton wanted to hide those communications from the reactionary pigs that have been after her and her husband for the last twenty-five years. My thought is that I wanted her to be able to get Blumenthal's unvarnished advice, without having to wonder if the sluts at Faux News or Judicial Wretch or some other right-wing lie-tank was gonna get at them.

Her server may have been hacked. Didn't Kerry say that State's system is frequently attacked as well, and may have been compromised? Is the gubmint's system any more secure?

>>There are also possible ethics violations in using a private server and email accounts to hide information from FOIA requests.

Was that her intent? People compare her situation to Petraeus's. My understanding is that he did intend to violate the law and that that's why he was charged.

>>It has been reported that Senator Clinton did not want to use the government provided unclassified computer, and requested permission to use her Blackberry (or an encrypted one similar to that owned by POTUS), though her request was denied.

That may be, but does that make her actions criminal?
Click to expand...

If she is not guilty, then any army first lieutenant handling classified military intelligence can port his classified server to his iPhone or computer, and there is no crime.

There is no "intent". You are quoting a DNC talking point designed to obfuscate the law: improper handling is illegal, regardless of intent.
 
chuckiechan said:
You are quoting a DNC talking point designed to obfuscate the law: improper handling is illegal, regardless of intent.
Click to expand...

And how many years have you practicing law, counselour?

>>any army first lieutenant handling classified military intelligence

… would benefit from knowing the easily accessed actual wording of the relevant statutes:

1) The Federal Records Act was not violated because the emails in question were not work-related. The law was amended in 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within twenty days, but that was after Clinton left office.

2) The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was not violated because all work-related emails have been turned over to the department.

3) Title 18, Section 1924 of the U.S. Criminal Code was not violated because no "documents or materials were removed." Therefore, there could be no intent to retain them improperly.

Whoever … knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location​

Thanks for playing. Now go check for the encrypted message on yer secret decoder ring.
 
mmi said:
Well, I don't have a security clearance and I never worked at State, so I'll need to go by what's reported in the news. You could go with a lying, slug POS like Tucker Carlson:

Everyone in Washington knows, and it is a fact, that information is never retroactively classified. That's just not true. Ask anybody in the intel community. (video source see 1:43)​

Douchey nods vigorously and say's "That's right."

Or you might decide to go with institutions like NPR and WaPo:

The White House said after the release that the FBI had determined that previously unclassified material in the emails needed to be classified on later review; spokesman Josh Earnest said such a decision isn't uncommon. — "Some Clinton Emails Were Retroactively Classified," May 22, 2015​

So how could information sent on an unclassified system turn out to be "top secret"? The answer is easy — when State Department officials review it in response to a request for public release.

"State's upgrading process is retroactive,” said one congressional aide. “It's not a sign of wrongdoing but rather the normal process used by State under all administrations before unclassified documents are made public (usually via FOIA). Often an unclassified email will be retroactively classified to protect foreign and diplomatic communications, for example." — "How did 'top secret' emails end up on Hillary Clinton's server?" Feb 4, 2016​

My understanding is that a lot of these emails were from the traitor and established terrorist sympathizer, Sidney Blumenthal. My guess is that Clinton wanted to hide those communications from the reactionary pigs that have been after her and her husband for the last twenty-five years. My thought is that I wanted her to be able to get Blumenthal's unvarnished advice, without having to wonder if the sluts at Faux News or Judicial Wretch or some other right-wing lie-tank was gonna get at them.

Her server may have been hacked. Didn't Kerry say that State's system is frequently attacked as well, and may have been compromised? Is the gubmint's system any more secure?

>>There are also possible ethics violations in using a private server and email accounts to hide information from FOIA requests.

Was that her intent? People compare her situation to Petraeus's. My understanding is that he did intend to violate the law and that that's why he was charged.

>>It has been reported that Senator Clinton did not want to use the government provided unclassified computer, and requested permission to use her Blackberry (or an encrypted one similar to that owned by POTUS), though her request was denied.

That may be, but does that make her actions criminal?
Click to expand...


Regarding Hillary's server, every professional in IT security that commented and there were quire a few, said it wasn't that her server might have been hacked it was a virtual certainty that her server was hacked.
The only question was what data did they get.
 
mmi said:
What about the department server?
Click to expand...

the department server is much more secure. I don't know if that server has been hacked.
 
SocialD said:
the department server is much more secure.
Click to expand...

And you know this because … ??

Hackers infiltrated the Department of Energy’s computer system over 150 times between 2010 and 2014. The National Nuclear Security Administration, a sub-agency within DOE that secures the country’s nuclear weapons, was hit with 19 successful cyberattacks over the four years. (source)​

My guess is that State's equipment is just as vulnerable.

>>I don't know if that server has been hacked.

Neither do I. Kerry says he thinks it has been accessed.

In an acknowledgment of the systems' vulnerability, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that it's "very likely" the Russian and Chinese governments are reading his emails. (source)​

+++++

I forgot to include this: Security Logs of Hillary Clinton's Email Server Are Said to Show No Evidence of Hacking (source)
 
Last edited:
The FBI is also investigating Hillarys personal server and work related e mails handled by and received by individuals without security clearances. Apparently she told an aid to strip the security designation and copy it and send it in the clear to and from her server, thus part of the reason Brian pagliano may have demanded immunity. He may have handled communications but had no clearance. He would have had to divulge the existence of the server to apply for one.

You can devils advocate for as long as you want, but the FBI is not investigating a missing puppy.
 
SocialD said:
Regarding Hillary's server, every professional in IT security that commented and there were quire a few, said it wasn't that her server might have been hacked it was a virtual certainty that her server was hacked.
The only question was what data did they get.
Click to expand...
mmi said:
And you know this because … ??
Hackers infiltrated the Department of Energy’s computer system over 150 times between 2010 and 2014. The National Nuclear Security Administration, a sub-agency within DOE that secures the country’s nuclear weapons, was hit with 19 successful cyberattacks over the four years. (source)​

My guess is that State's equipment is just as vulnerable.

>>I don't know if that server has been hacked.

Neither do I. Kerry says he thinks it has been accessed.
In an acknowledgment of the systems' vulnerability, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that it's "very likely" the Russian and Chinese governments are reading his emails. (source)​

+++++

I forgot to include this: Security Logs of Hillary Clinton's Email Server Are Said to Show No Evidence of Hacking (source)
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure how this thread got on Hillary Clinton, but the argument people are making, that Clinton's private e-mail server could have gotten hacked, are absolutely laughable. Not because it's not a good possibility it got hacked, but because of the idea the State Department servers couldn't be hacked is laughable:

2015: Sources: State Dept Hack the 'worst ever' - CNNPolitics.com
2014: State Department's unclassified email systems hacked | Reuters
2013: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...edly-been-hacked-and-sensitive-info-released/
2006: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-computers-hacked/
2001: http://www.computerworld.com/articl...epartment-site-hacked--servers-shut-down.html

The State Department was getting hacked way back in 2001. Quite frankly, a private e-mail server would be less likely to be attacked, if only for the lower profile of it. There are several legitimate reasons to wonder/be concerned about why Hillary had a private e-mail server, but the argument of "it could have been hacked" is an argument only an idiot or hopeless partisan would make.
SocialD said:
the department server is much more secure. I don't know if that server has been hacked.
Click to expand...
It has. Many times. Ironically enough, you don't know if Clinton's server was hacked either, but you sure don't mind spreading a rumor that it was.

Oh, and to be clear, I suspect there's a strong possibility it was. Just like the State Department's.
 
Last edited:
Just about everywhere I go now I see 'help wanted' signs in the windows or on doors. The economy is doing just fine, it's come all the way back. And then some.

As for manufacturing? We can't change or fix the mistakes this country made 30+ years ago concerning manufacturing jobs. That ship has sailed, manufacturing is gone. Politicians and the rest who scream about how they will bring back manufacturing jobs are full of crap. It's empty talk. The mistakes that were made decades ago can not be undone.
 
Sorry to go on off-topic so much. I'll stop after this.

chuckiechan said:
Apparently she told an aid to strip the security designation and copy it and send it in the clear to and from her server, thus part of the reason Brian pagliano may have demanded immunity. He may have handled communications but had no clearance.
Click to expand...

Yes, these lies are (or were) prominent in right-wing, lying, hate media in recent weeks. Lots of "apparentlys" and "may haves." It's all a load of crap, of course. You got nothin'. Just partisan speculation.

>>You can devils advocate for as long as you want, but the FBI is not investigating a missing puppy.

And you can insist she's broken the law all you want, but investigations don't mean wrongdoing. When no action is taken, the cover-up noise will get much louder.

"Hillary Clinton didn't break the law," LA Times, Mar 30, 2016
 
DA60 said:
)...if you are not employed and want a job and are legally able to work then you should be classified as unemployed...period.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You wrote this, but you claim as your authority the dictionary:
My God man...the very definition of unemployed is:

'unemployed
[uhn-em-ploid]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
not employed; without a job; out of work:'

Unemployed | Define Unemployed at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...


So it seems odd that you complain that BLS, and pretty much every other statistical agency in the world, uses a more restrictive definition than the dictionary, but SO DO YOU! By the dictionary definition, infants are unemployed and so are people in comas.

But you clearly don't accept that, but impose limitations that the person must desire work and be "legally able." (which BLS does not require, by the way).

So why is your change from the dictionary more useful and sound than that that is almost universally accepted.

The fact that you cannot see this is truly amazing...your INTENSE loyalty to the BLS I guess.


It is like explaining why is oxygen important...it is that simple/obvious to me.


If you do not understand the above now, I fear you never will.


And since I am POSITIVE that my explanation is something you TOTALLY disagree with...we are (once again) done on this for now.


Good day.[/QUOTE]
 
mmi said:
And you know this because … ??

Hackers infiltrated the Department of Energy’s computer system over 150 times between 2010 and 2014. The National Nuclear Security Administration, a sub-agency within DOE that secures the country’s nuclear weapons, was hit with 19 successful cyberattacks over the four years. (source)​

My guess is that State's equipment is just as vulnerable.

>>I don't know if that server has been hacked.

Neither do I. Kerry says he thinks it has been accessed.

In an acknowledgment of the systems' vulnerability, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that it's "very likely" the Russian and Chinese governments are reading his emails. (source)​

+++++

I forgot to include this: Security Logs of Hillary Clinton's Email Server Are Said to Show No Evidence of Hacking (source)
Click to expand...

So this article quotes no one when it says the logs contained no evidence of hacking. the only person it mentions is Clintons aide Bryan Pagliano, so we can only assume they are quoting him. You are going to buy into her own aid claiming there was no hacks and just run with that... and you are asking me how 'I' know that the government servers would be more secure, but willing to run with this no quote..

Perhaps you could consider that her server security was misconfigured.. per this article which does name two security consultants
Great news: Hillary?s e-mail server had a ?misconfigured encryption system? « Hot Air
or this article
For 3 months Hillary Clinton’s email was unencrypted, open to spies - Fortune

There are also several articles out there you can find about her service provider being hacked during the time she was using them in 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom