• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Unemployement Drops: Legitimate or Not?

You may be wrong? You bet you are wrong, I posted the same data you have posted, there were 12.088 million unemployed, 802,000 discouraged workers in the 22.7 million U-6 number so not sure what you are even talking about. Nothing you posted refuted anything that I posted. Maybe you ought to pay closer attention and actual read the data I posted.
Said the guy(?) who didn't read my post.

I posted that I have no idea where you got your numbers because you didn't provide a link and that your point was indecipherable.

That's that. Idk why you were expecting something other than what I said.

I am posting the same data [w/o making any conclusions abut the data] and I am wrong?
Fascinating.

Personally I think I was right that you did not include a link to your source.
I also think I was right that you presentation was piss-poor.
obviously, ymmv.
Maybe you think that you did post a link to your source?
Maybe you think your data was well displayed. idk.
 
It could also include those who say they are unemployed but are registered with their unemployment office job match service but who are not actually receiving a check. You do not have to be receiving a check to register a job search with them, at least not where I live. Some employers will use the office as their human resources first step so you have to apply through them even if you already have another job.

They're not counted - they only count checks - those actively receiving unemployment ... At least when it comes to the federal count, or allegedly when it does...

Either way I don't buy the numbers - when half of my local strip-mall is vacant I don't but it. What does everyone work for the government now like a bunch of communist freaks?
 
"Actively looking for work" are those on unemployment.
The BLS thinks that they use a different definition than you think they use. :shrug:
They think they use the definition I posted from their website.

Maybe you're right. I don't see any indication that you are--aside from your assertion that is.

I am personally inclined to take the BLS's word for how they define actively looking for work.
They provide it at the link I provided for your edification. But I will share it here as well.

I don't see the part about being on unemployment as a criteria for "actively looking for work" as you say.



How the Government Measures Unemployment

Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

  • Contacting:​
    • An employer directly or having a job interview​
    • A public or private employment agency​
    • Friends or relatives​
    • A school or university employment center​
  • Sending out resumes or filling out applications​
  • Placing or answering advertisements​
  • Checking union or professional registers​
  • Some other means of active job search

I am not saying you're wrong. Just saying that you appear to be wrong.
Further evidence could come to light which may support your position. Do you have any?
 
They're not counted - they only count checks - those actively receiving unemployment ... At least when it comes to the federal count, or allegedly when it does...

Either way I don't buy the numbers - when half of my local strip-mall is vacant I don't but it. What does everyone work for the government now like a bunch of communist freaks?

Actually public sector employment is way down where as private sector has been on the increase
 
They're not counted - they only count checks - those actively receiving unemployment ... At least when it comes to the federal count, or allegedly when it does...

Either way I don't buy the numbers - when half of my local strip-mall is vacant I don't but it. What does everyone work for the government now like a bunch of communist freaks?

So now your local strip mall trumps the Labor Dept's figures? Ever occur to you it just might not be the best location?
 
Probably because it comes from the Treasury site.
And what is the reason why you did not provide a link to your source?
You seem to be a little shy about sharing your sources.

If it's foolish to want examine the sources for information presented in debate, then count me in. I'll be that kind of foolish all day long.

Anyway, would you care to share links to your sources for your assertions? Or would that be foolish?
 
Sorry but this recession didn't affect me or my family at all, wonder why? The 81-82 recession effected everyone because we had less money due to high inflation, Reagan corrected that with his tax cuts. I agree though in what a good leader is and see no such qualities in Obama. Good leaders don't attack success, demonize individual wealth creation, and promote individual wealth redistribution. This country was built on self reliance and neighbor helping neighbor with the govt. not classified as a neighbor. Force social spending has created the debt we have today.

Of course it affected "you", just not a severely as some, unless you didn't have a portfolio of investments, dont own a house, have a recession proof business (like a bankruptcy lawyer). But even in the days of 20%+ capital, if you had a lot of liquid assets, you were laughing.

As for attacking success, demonizing individual wealth creation and promoting individual wealth distribution. Obama has never attacked success, nor has he demonized individual wealth creation. Can you provide any quotes or video evidence of this, or is this simpliy another deliberate misinterpretation of his statements. Statements like 'those of us who have done well for ourselves can afford to give back a little more" cannot be construed as demonization nor attack.

And considering your extensive business experience you already know that all income and consumption taxes are examples of individual wealth distribution. Unless, you don't know because your ideology gets in the way of basic truths.

It is the responsibility of a leader to bring people together not divide them. Obama hasn't met with Congress in probably years now but he has time for the View. Obama hasn't met with his jobs' council since January but he has time for Leno, Obama hasn't met with our allies and has never visited Israel but that is ok since Israel really isn't a true ally are they?

I don't know, when the other side says no compromise and proceeds to demonstrate just how ideologically entrenched they are, what is the point? Yeah he hasn't met with his jobs council since january, when IIRC he sent the jobs bill to congress to die a uncompromising death.
Of course Israel is a true ally of the United States. Obama doesn't like bibi because he is totally two faced and desperately wants america to fight "his war" for him. YOu want to talk about US Israel Palstinian relations, lets start another thread. Its has been an subject of high interest to me for the past couple of decades.
LOL, you don't know me or what I make or pay in U.S. taxes in this country and I earned every dollar I made, in fact I did build it.

I know what the marginal tax rate in the US are and its one helluva lot less than in Canada, likewise state vs provincial taxes, likewise state vs provincial sales taxes, likewise the absence of an 7% general sales tax from the feds, and don't get me started on mil rates for real estate. I too have earned every dollar I have made and I too built it, with a lot of help along the way.

I anxiously await your proof that the majority of those not paying any FIT are Republicans. Thanks in advance

Since when does a "sizable chunk" equal a majority?
 
So 3.75 billion people are idiots in your mind?? yet Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Barack Obama are top of the human race in intelligence?
It's kind of a definition thing that a certain percentage of people fall below the average of intelligence. It's tied to what the definition of average is.

Not exactly the same as being an idiot imho. but ymmv.

It's not like everyone can be above average intelligence, now is it? That doesn't actually work out when you look at the numbers, does it?
 
Said the guy(?) who didn't read my post.

I posted that I have no idea where you got your numbers because you didn't provide a link and that your point was indecipherable.

That's that. Idk why you were expecting something other than what I said.

I am posting the same data [w/o making any conclusions abut the data] and I am wrong?
Fascinating.

Personally I think I was right that you did not include a link to your source.
I also think I was right that you presentation was piss-poor.
obviously, ymmv.
Maybe you think that you did post a link to your source?
Maybe you think your data was well displayed. idk.

Totally understand for I forgot that I have to hold a liberal's hand and lead them directly to the data as the actual chart including the name of the chart is asking someone to do too much work. I wouldn't want to overburden you by asking you to do too much. I have posted link after link onlly to be ignored therefore I posted the actual chart with the chart name so all somone has to do is go to bls.gov, enter the name of the chart and it will take you right to it.

Same is true with the bea.gov data where you can find actual Treasury data but then again it would require someone to actually learn something. That is way too much to ask of many.

Here is the link to the income data, hope it works, if not, tough. Go to Govt. receipts and revenue and you can match up the numbers.

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
 
And what is the reason why you did not provide a link to your source?
You seem to be a little shy about sharing your sources.

If it's foolish to want examine the sources for information presented in debate, then count me in. I'll be that kind of foolish all day long.

Anyway, would you care to share links to your sources for your assertions? Or would that be foolish?

I pity the fool that doesn't know any hyper text markup language. ;)
 
They're not counted - they only count checks - those actively receiving unemployment ... At least when it comes to the federal count, or allegedly when it does...
Could you share the source where you're getting your info about the BLS definitions ans statistics? Your source doesn't seem to match what the BLS says.
 
Totally understand for I forgot that I have to hold a liberal's hand and lead them directly to the data as the actual chart including the name of the chart is asking someone to do too much work. I wouldn't want to overburden you by asking you to do too much. I have posted link after link onlly to be ignored therefore I posted the actual chart with the chart name so all somone has to do is go to bls.gov, enter the name of the chart and it will take you right to it.
Awesome. If you being insulting, that's a strong indicator that you think I am winning the debate and you don't have any legitimate ammo left.
TY for your vote of confidence.
But fyi I am not debating at this point.

Just trying to find info to see for myself.
I do note that requests for you to provide this evidence have elicited defensive and insulting behaviors from you. Readers will have to decide for themselves why you would have that reaction.

Here is the link to the income data, hope it works, if not, tough. Go to Govt. receipts and revenue and you can match up the numbers.
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1
Funny thing is this doesn't match you numbers you got from some unknown source at the treasury dept site.

Couldn't you just link to the page at the treasury site where you got the numbers?

Seems like the easier route.
 
Last edited:
Jonsa;1060993155]Of course it affected "you", just not a severely as some, unless you didn't have a portfolio of investments, dont own a house, have a recession proof business (like a bankruptcy lawyer). But even in the days of 20%+ capital, if you had a lot of liquid assets, you were laughing.

Wrong, I was smart enough to see the Democrats take over the Congress and put all my investments into cash. The market bottomed out, the recession ended and I invested again. I do indeed own a house and refinanced it at 3.5%. Thanks for your concern

As for attacking success, demonizing individual wealth creation and promoting individual wealth distribution. Obama has never attacked success, nor has he demonized individual wealth creation. Can you provide any quotes or video evidence of this, or is this simpliy another deliberate misinterpretation of his statements. Statements like 'those of us who have done well for ourselves can afford to give back a little more" cannot be construed as demonization nor attack.

Yes, I can provide quote after quote but you wouldof income just ignore them. It is safe enough to point however to a major statement that the evil rich people who are paying 40% of the FIT in this country aren't paying their far share but the 47% of income earning households paying zero apparently are. Why would anyone who believes in free enterprise and capitalism promote a tax plan that penalizes producers and job creators. Tell me how raising the taxes on anyone puts 22.7 million Americans back to work full time paying taxes?

And considering your extensive business experience you already know that all income and consumption taxes are examples of individual wealth distribution. Unless, you don't know because your ideology gets in the way of basic truths.

Actually that isn't the case, you don't use something you don't pay the taxes. You don't get SS you don't contribute to the fund. You don't drive a car you don't pay excise taxes on gasoline, you don't purchase taxable items you don't pay sales taxes, you don't own a home or property you don't pay property taxes. You earn income in this country and you may or may not pay Federal Income taxes. Think that anyone who doesn't pay FIT or pays use taxes really cares about tax increases?

I don't know, when the other side says no compromise and proceeds to demonstrate just how ideologically entrenched they are, what is the point? Yeah he hasn't met with his jobs council since january, when IIRC he sent the jobs bill to congress to die a uncompromising death.
Of course Israel is a true ally of the United States. Obama doesn't like bibi because he is totally two faced and desperately wants america to fight "his war" for him. YOu want to talk about US Israel Palstinian relations, lets start another thread. Its has been an subject of high interest to me for the past couple of decades.

What would you have the other side compromise on, increasing taxes without reducing the 3.8 trillion dollar budget?

You actually believe the jobs bill died? you really have no idea what you are talking about, the part that died was the burden placed upon the states when the federal money stopped. Guess that escaped you in Canada?

As for Israel, nice spin, Israel is the best ally in the region and when Obama was in Cairo he could have gone to Israel but didn't. When he was in Iraq he could have gone to Israel but didn't. He was in NY for the View and could have met with foreign leaders but didn't. He is the worst President this country has ever had and yet he excites people like you who don't even live here and millions here dependent on taxpayer assistance.

I know what the marginal tax rate in the US are and its one helluva lot less than in Canada, likewise state vs provincial taxes, likewise state vs provincial sales taxes, likewise the absence of an 7% general sales tax from the feds, and don't get me started on mil rates for real estate. I too have earned every dollar I have made and I too built it, with a lot of help along the way.

Don't worry, Obama given his way will make this country just like Canada with higher taxes and higher dependence on govt. services. This country wasn't built on those principles and there is a reason we had an economy grow from 9.9 trillion to 14.4 trillion under Bush and it wasn't because of Obama.

I had a lot of help along the way too but hard work initiative, drive, strong work ethic based upon opportunity helped me succeed and what I have done with that success has helped others. I didn't need to send tax dollars to the govt. to help people in my local community. Neighbor helping neighbor means exactly what it says and neighbor doesn't mean a Federal bureaucrat



Since when does a "sizable chunk" equal a majority?

I would be happy with proof that a "sizeable chunk" are Republicans.
 
Awesome. If you being insulting, that's a strong indicator that you think I am winning the debate and you don't have any legitimate ammo left.
TY for your vote of confidence.
But fyi I am not debating at this point.

Just trying to find info to see for myself.


Funny thing is this doesn't match you numbers you got from some unknown source at the treasury dept site.

Couldn't you just link to the page at the treasury site where you got the numbers?

Seems like the easier route.

You are right, I lost the debate, you are a legend in your own mind. Where do you think the numbers for BEA.gov come from? That's ok, most other liberals don't know either.
 
You are right, I lost the debate, you are a legend in your own mind. Where do you think the numbers for BEA.gov come from? That's ok, most other liberals don't know either.
So no link to the treasury dept to show numbers that match the ones you provided?

I didn't say that you lost the debate. I said I wasn't debating. I am just trying to find info.

You're the one who seems to be resorting to name calling when asked to back up your assertion.
That is a tactic which is associated with someone who thinks they're losing and has no more legitimate ammo.
Ime anyway.
Perhaps ymmv.

Perhaps you resort to name calling when you actually have a full quiver of legitimate responses at your disposal?
idk
 
You are right, I lost the debate, you are a legend in your own mind. Where do you think the numbers for BEA.gov come from? That's ok, most other liberals don't know either.

Well unemployment numbers start out with census workers going out and collecting raw data
 
There is a lot of pent up need in America.. People want housing, furniture, cars etc.

When it blows open it will be like 1950.
 
The notion that welfare fraud and the progressives tolerance of it existing and the denial portrayed here is absolutely stunning.

Ah now we are getting somewhere. we both agree that there is welfare fraud. How much welfare fraud? and what exactly should be done about it?
IN canada, even our right wing would be progressive to the likes of you, but in Ontario this is one way we try to address the problem.

http://www.actoronto.org/home.nsf/pages/workfare

Workfare is the obligation to do unpaid work in return for a welfare cheque. This obligation is in addition to the general obligation when on welfare to seek paid employment.
.....

If a person on social assistance is considered “employable” then participation in Ontario Works is required. If not placed in one of the other programs
such as employment support and employment placement, the person will be required to look for work and do community service.

So 3.75 billion people are idiots in your mind?? yet Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Barack Obama are top of the human race in intelligence?

Thanks for the gift... I suppose people will have to open the thread to see whats in it?

No, not idiots, below average intelligence, mostly "dull" normal and borderline deficient. Idiots are considered profoundly deficient with IQs of less than 20.

I certainly didn't mention anyone by name. It is possible to get a degree and be "dull normal" i.e. IQ 80-90 but you wont find any doctors or scientists in that group.
You're the racist not me.....

Sorry, I cant try harder to be a minority when I'm not... I suppose that never occurred to your light bulb.

Oh? you are the one that claims that your are a victim of affirmative action. It is as good an excuse as any other I suppose.

The fact you are completely unaware of the irony of your statements is testament to your prejudices.

Psst. I never talk to my light bulbs. they are way to binary for me.


Sorry, its me - it's not you....... Yeaaaaaa it is definately you.

Guess you've never gone thru a couple of days of non-stop interviewing for a new hire. Letting them down softly makes one feel a little better in denying somebody the position for x or y reason. Why be rude if you don't have to?
 
So no link to the treasury dept to show numbers that match the ones you provided?

I didn't say that you lost the debate. I said I wasn't debating. I am just trying to find info.

You're the one who seems to be resorting to name calling when asked to back up your assertion.
That is a tactic which is associated with someone who thinks they're losing and has no more legitimate ammo.
Ime anyway.
Perhaps ymmv.

Perhaps you resort to name calling when you actually have a full quiver of legitimate responses at your disposal?
idk

There is no way to post the actual link in bea.gov, you have to go to the link I gave you, go to receipts and expenditures and then options, put in the date you want and you will find the data I posted. That is why I posted the actual data to make it easier on some to find.
 
Awesome. If you being insulting, that's a strong indicator that you think I am winning the debate and you don't have any legitimate ammo left.
TY for your vote of confidence.
But fyi I am not debating at this point.

Just trying to find info to see for myself.
I do note that requests for you to provide this evidence have elicited defensive and insulting behaviors from you. Readers will have to decide for themselves why you would have that reaction.

Funny thing is this doesn't match you numbers you got from some unknown source at the treasury dept site.

Couldn't you just link to the page at the treasury site where you got the numbers?

Seems like the easier route.

Unemployment Rate Definition, Example & Formula | InvestingAnswers

How to Calculate Unemployment Rate | eHow.com

It's not very difficult to understand yall...................
 
Not saying that it's hard to understand. Just saying that what you're saying doesn't match what the BLS says.

Neither one of these sites say what you're saying about what "actively looking for work" means.
Maybe you got your idea from somewhere else?

What do you think we should do with the BLS idea of what they use as a definition of "actively looking for work"?
Should we consider the possibility that the BLS has some idea of what definition they use?
 
Ah now we are getting somewhere. we both agree that there is welfare fraud. How much welfare fraud? and what exactly should be done about it?
IN canada, even our right wing would be progressive to the likes of you, but in Ontario this is one way we try to address the problem.

Workfare

Workfare is the obligation to do unpaid work in return for a welfare cheque. This obligation is in addition to the general obligation when on welfare to seek paid employment.
....


Guess what? I don't really cares what happens in Canada.....

If a person on social assistance is considered “employable” then participation in Ontario Works is required. If not placed in one of the other programs
such as employment support and employment placement, the person will be required to look for work and do community service.

I'm from Chicago....



No, not idiots, below average intelligence, mostly "dull" normal and borderline deficient. Idiots are considered profoundly deficient with IQs of less than 20.

You get credit for the idiot thing - however, research Chicago.

I certainly didn't mention anyone by name. It is possible to get a degree and be "dull normal" i.e. IQ 80-90 but you wont find any doctors or scientists in that group.

Well it only shows how basic college is - that is why I burned my degree..... Means nothing to me - does nothing for me. What good is a degree that anyone can get? - even a person with the IQ of 80? - but I suppose everyone these days gets a "Red Ribbon" (in your country)...... Every kid gets a blue ribbon here..







Oh? you are the one that claims that your are a victim of affirmative action. It is as good an excuse as any other I suppose.

The fact you are completely unaware of the irony of your statements is testament to your prejudices.

Psst. I never talk to my light bulbs. they are way to binary for me.

You the oppressor, you enjoy it dude?




Guess you've never gone thru a couple of days of non-stop interviewing for a new hire. Letting them down softly makes one feel a little better in denying somebody the position for x or y reason. Why be rude if you don't have to?[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
There is no way to post the actual link in bea.gov, you have to go to the link I gave you, go to receipts and expenditures and then options, put in the date you want and you will find the data I posted. That is why I posted the actual data to make it easier on some to find.
This is what I see:
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/download....3477A02E303D5B52DC780C0BFEF8E8E73D07D9F7FE1E5


Table 3.2. Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures
[Billions of dollars] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: September 27, 2012 - Next Release Date October 26, 2012

Code:
*	2001			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2101.9	2087	1894.9	1997.3
Current tax receipts	1326.3	1314.7	1126.2	1230.6
				
	2002			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	1860	1858.3	1855.9	1863.1
Current tax receipts	1078.4	1073.3	1067	1075.2
				
	2003			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	1886.3	1902.8	1827.4	1923.9
Current tax receipts	1084.7	1091.3	1009	1096
				
	2004			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	1944.4	1989	2044.2	2078.3
Current tax receipts	1098.4	1135	1178.5	1203.4
				
	2005			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2230.7	2257.3	2305.4	2366.9
Current tax receipts	1336.9	1357	1392.9	1448
				
	2006			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2473.8	2501.8	2547.4	2575.1
Current tax receipts	1517.6	1541.6	1581.3	1592.8
				
	2007			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2642.8	2658.5	2651.5	2666.1
Current tax receipts	1637.2	1648.6	1632.6	1632
				
	2008			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2640.1	2409.8	2501.4	2457.7
Current tax receipts	1586.2	1358.4	1450.2	1396.1
				
	2009			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2218.7	2207.4	2206.5	2273.4
Current tax receipts	1162.3	1130.7	1154	1207.2
				
	2010			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2326.6	2365.8	2427.2	2461.9
Current tax receipts	1252.3	1282	1333.9	1371.3
				
	2011			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2509.8	2522.9	2511.3	2534.3
Current tax receipts	1494	1504.1	1494.2	1518.5
				
	2012			
	I	II		
    Current receipts	2664.9	2669.1		
Current tax receipts	1629.2	1637		
*	2001			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2101.9	2087	1894.9	1997.3
Current tax receipts	1326.3	1314.7	1126.2	1230.6
				
	2002			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	1860	1858.3	1855.9	1863.1
Current tax receipts	1078.4	1073.3	1067	1075.2
				
	2003			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	1886.3	1902.8	1827.4	1923.9
Current tax receipts	1084.7	1091.3	1009	1096
				
	2004			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	1944.4	1989	2044.2	2078.3
Current tax receipts	1098.4	1135	1178.5	1203.4
				
	2005			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2230.7	2257.3	2305.4	2366.9
Current tax receipts	1336.9	1357	1392.9	1448
				
	2006			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2473.8	2501.8	2547.4	2575.1
Current tax receipts	1517.6	1541.6	1581.3	1592.8
				
	2007			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2642.8	2658.5	2651.5	2666.1
Current tax receipts	1637.2	1648.6	1632.6	1632
				
	2008			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2640.1	2409.8	2501.4	2457.7
Current tax receipts	1586.2	1358.4	1450.2	1396.1
				
	2009			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2218.7	2207.4	2206.5	2273.4
Current tax receipts	1162.3	1130.7	1154	1207.2
				
	2010			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2326.6	2365.8	2427.2	2461.9
Current tax receipts	1252.3	1282	1333.9	1371.3
				
	2011			
	I	II	III	IV
    Current receipts	2509.8	2522.9	2511.3	2534.3
Current tax receipts	1494	1504.1	1494.2	1518.5
				
	2012			
	I	II		
    Current receipts	2664.9	2669.1		
Current tax receipts	1629.2	1637
ETA
hmm it looks so much better in preview
trying again

Compare and contrast:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...nt-drops-legitimate-not-7.html#post1060992611

2001 2163.7
2002 2002.1
2003 2047.9
2004 2213.2
2005 2546.8
2006 2807.4
2007 2951.2
2008 2790.3​
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom