• 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!

Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

First, I do not even begin to care what the BLS sites as the accuracy of their claims. That is like a corporation doing an internal audit...totally bias and completely useless.
How on earth could it be biased? It's straight math and it would not be possible to have any different answers. The sampling error is straight fact.


Second, the BLS has apparently, on occasion, been pressured (and agreed) to cook the numbers for political higher ups.
Neither link supports that claim. A nd you're citing heavily biased sources and the articles contain a lot of "could haves" and "possibly"s. Why do you have two different standards?

Census ‘faked’ 2012 election jobs report | New York Post of course curbstoning happens; that's why it's watched out for and why Buckmon was fired. There is nothing to show any political motivation and no one is claiming any particular result was asked for or could have been obtained. Read it again and then tell us what the FACTS in that article are. Not speculation, not unsupported claims, but facts.

[QuoteThird, as I believe I have stated before - the CES is NOT a stright tabulation. There is a TON of creative math and modelling going on. The Net Birth/Death Model is just one of them.

CES Net Birth/Death Model
what would you consider a "straight tabulation?" And of course there's math and modelling. But why do you think the modeling is inaccurate? Present facts and evidence, not your bias or zero hedge' shows.

'Birth/Death does not refer to people but to businesses. The BLS guesses how many new companies opened versus how many closed their doors. The BLS then uses that guess to guess again how many jobs those business created or lost.'
Statistical modeling is not a "Guess."
And you're ignoring the QCEW. Which is not a survey, but a full count. The CES is not off by much when compared to the actual numbers.

I am not saying the CPS is great either...but I believe their tabulation process is less adjusted by 'modeling'
I'm confused by your use of "belief." Is it or is it not less adjusted? That's not a matter of belief or opinion.
But in any case, less adjusted does not mean more accurate. Modeling and adjustments are made to increase accuracy.

It's simple, you have faith (apparently) that the BLS is an honorable organization that would never fudge numbers.
In over 100 years no one has ever shown they have, and I personally know many of the people involved. So it's not "faith"

I say the BLS regularly fudges the numbers through usually legal tabulation/modelling processes to get the result their superiors desire.
You can say it all you want, but it's still a lie. And you clearly don't understand the first thing about statistic
And you have no evidence or reason except your own bias or biased sources.

believe the CPS is the more accurate number (when it is not being deliberately manipulated) - you do not.
It's No a matter of belief! Factually, numerically, by simple math, the CES is more accurate and that accuracy we m proven every year by comparison to the actual numbers.


B]And, with respect, nothing you have provided has factually proven me wrong as I asked for links to unbiased, factual proof that what I said was wrong.
Yes, I did. Bias is not possible when talking about error rates. And you have presented neither facts nor unbiased evidence.
 
For an example of how the CPS data is more prone to non-sampling error, we can look at the Employment Situation News Release for October 2013, which covered the government shutdown.

Some agencies of the federal government were shut down or were |
| operating at reduced staffing levels from October 1, 2013, |
| through October 16, 2013. All household and establishment survey |
| operations, including data collection, were suspended during |
| that time period. Shortly after the shutdown ended, October data |
| collection for both surveys began. The Bureau of Labor |
| Statistics (BLS) delayed the publication of this release by 1 |
| week to allow enough time to collect data. The reference periods |
| for the surveys were not changed. The response rate for the |
| household survey was within its normal range, and the response |
| rate for the establishment survey was above average. |
| |
| In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed, |
| unemployed, or not in the labor force based on their answers to |
| a series of questions about their activities during the survey |
| reference week. Workers who indicate that they were not working |
| during the entire survey reference week and expected to be |
| recalled to their jobs should be classified in the household |
| survey as unemployed on temporary layoff. In October 2013, there |
| was an increase in the number of federal workers who were |
| classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, there |
| also was an increase in the number of federal workers who were |
| classified as employed but absent from work. BLS analysis of the |
| data indicates that this group included federal workers affected |
| by the shutdown who also should have been classified as |
| unemployed on temporary layoff. Such a misclassification is an |
| example of nonsampling error and can occur when respondents |
| misunderstand questions or interviewers record answers |
| incorrectly. According to usual practice, the data from the |
| household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain |
| data integrity, no ad hoc actions taken to reassign survey |
| responses. |
| |
| It should be noted that household survey data for federal |
| workers are available only on a not seasonally adjusted basis. |
| As a result, over-the-month changes in federal worker data |
| series cannot be compared with seasonally adjusted over-the- |
| month changes in total employed and unemployed. |
| |
| In the establishment survey, businesses report the number of |
| people who work or receive pay for any part of the pay period |
| that includes the 12th of the month. Persons who work or receive |
| pay for any part of the pay period are defined as employed. This |
| method of classifying workers is the same in all industries, |
| including the federal government. Federal employees on furlough |
| during the partial federal government shutdown were still |
| considered employed in the payroll survey because they worked or |
| received pay for the pay period that included the 12th of the |
| month.
 
And yours is the typical liberal response when you don't get your way.

How is it that I "didn't get my way"?

>>Fact, your post was difficult to read and impossible to respond to point by point

It may well be a fact that is is difficult for you to respond to; I really can't say. All of the excerpts I cited were posted by … you … in a single post. The first excerpt was placed within a linked text box. After that, all of … your comments … were preceded by two angle brackets, while all of … mine … were not. (Am I going slowly enough for ya?)

The format goes like this:

your comment

my response

>>your comment

my response

>>your comment

my response


Is that structure is too complicated for ya?

>>Learn how to use this forum and I will be happy to engage you and make you look foolish by offering actual verifiable facts.

I really don't care if you respond to me or not. I seriously doubt that you are capable of making me look foolish. I'll admit that I can do it to myself; bothering to have this dialogue is perhaps an example of it. And I would note that a lot of what I put up is indeed "actual verifiable facts." Point to one that isn't — you cannot.

>>If you cannot do that then I suggest you move to another country

Not going anywhere.

>>personal wealth that you are jealous about

Quite laughable, dittohead. I have everything I want. If I came into a lot of money, I'd give it away.
 
your rebuts are a mess and hard to read.

I have every confidence that a typical eight-year-old could follow the format without a bit of difficulty: comments I'm responding to are preceded by two angle brackets; my responses are not. Is it really all that complicated? If it is, just don't bother reading my posts. Problem solved.

>>Use the " Reply with Quote " button, and then copy and paste the beginning and ending of the "Quote" function when you want to make additional replies. I know you can do it

I would simply type "[/QUOTE]" if I wanted to, saving the clipboard for other material. And yet I choose not to. ☺
 
Let me be clear so as to save you wasting your time...I am interested in only one thing in the economic threads...facts/data from unbiased sources.

I appreciate yer concern, but I have all the time in the world.

>>I am not in the SLIGHTEST bit interested in opinions from most people - especially from those who I believe have closed minds...as you seem to have (no offense).

In that case, I would suggest that you should not bother to read them.

>>Since I did not see a link in your reply, I did not read it.

I'll do best to get over the heartbreak of knowing that.

>>If you cannot provide links to facts from unbiased sources then you are of no use to me in this thread.

Oh well, I tried.
 
How on earth could it be biased? It's straight math and it would not be possible to have any different answers. The sampling error is straight fact.


Neither link supports that claim. A nd you're citing heavily biased sources and the articles contain a lot of "could haves" and "possibly"s. Why do you have two different standards?

what would you consider a "straight tabulation?" And of course there's math and modelling. But why do you think the modeling is inaccurate? Present facts and evidence, not your bias or zero hedge' shows.

Statistical modeling is not a "Guess."
And you're ignoring the QCEW. Which is not a survey, but a full count. The CES is not off by much when compared to the actual numbers.


I'm confused by your use of "belief." Is it or is it not less adjusted? That's not a matter of belief or opinion.
But in any case, less adjusted does not mean more accurate. Modeling and adjustments are made to increase accuracy.


In over 100 years no one has ever shown they have, and I personally know many of the people involved. So it's not "faith"

You can say it all you want, but it's still a lie. And you clearly don't understand the first thing about statistic
And you have no evidence or reason except your own bias or biased sources.

It's No a matter of belief! Factually, numerically, by simple math, the CES is more accurate and that accuracy we m proven every year by comparison to the actual numbers.



Yes, I did. Bias is not possible when talking about error rates. And you have presented neither facts nor unbiased evidence.

No offense but I almost never do huge, multi-quote posts...not for anyone...life is WAY too short for that. All they usually end up doing is becoming massive, pointless, round-and-round, urinating contests.

As I told mmi, all I am interested in economic threads is links to data/facts from unbiased sources...NOTHING more.

And since the only links you keep providing are from the BLS...which is an INCREDIBLY biased source when discussing the BLS...they interest me little in this discussion.

Now this has gone past my point of caring. If you have links to unbiased sources...and NOT government based ones...I might look at them.
Otherwise, I am just going to move on...again, life is too short to spent it going round and round with faceless/nameless people about subjects I only moderately care about on a chat forum.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
As I told mmi, all I am interested in economic threads is links to data/facts from unbiased sources...NOTHING more.
From others. You seem to have no problem using biased sources engaging in speculation instead of facts. And you const a burly refer to your opinion or belief.

[Quoute]And since the only links you keep providing are from the BLS...which is an INCREDIBLY biased source when discussing the BLS...they interest me little in this discussion.[/quote] again, how could facts and technical details be biased????
 
From others. You seem to have no problem using biased sources engaging in speculation instead of facts. And you const a burly refer to your opinion or belief.

[Quoute]And since the only links you keep providing are from the BLS...which is an INCREDIBLY biased source when discussing the BLS...they interest me little in this discussion.

again, how could facts and technical details be biased????

I believe I generally post links to (attempt to) back up my statements...or at least, that is my intention. But, I sometimes am in a mood to just kill time, so I might blather a bit.
Hey, you do not have to read my opinions either.
I have said many times...I am here to learn, teach and kill time.


I said unbiased sources. When defending the BLS, surely you, a seemingly bright fellow, cannot honestly believe that the BLS is an unbiased source?

This is going nowhere...I do not wish to seem rude (again)...but unless you have a link from an UNBIASED source(s) to disprove what I said using ONLY data/facts, then I will not respond to this line of debate further.
I suggest we just agree to disagree and move on.

I sincerely hope you have a good evening.
 
Last edited:
I believe I generally post links to (attempt to) back up my statements..
And those links are not factual and are heavily biased.


I said unbiased sources. When defending the BLS, surely you, a seemingly bright fellow, cannot honestly believe that the BLS is an unbiased source?
Where do you see bias? Stating sample size, methodology, probability error, benchmarks, etc, how is bias possible? They're just facts.

but unless you have a link from an UNBIASED source(s) to disprove what I said using ONLY data/facts, then I will not respond to this line of debate further.
I'm waiting for you to live up to the standards you insist on. Give any unbiased source showing data or facts that shows the CPS employment data is more accurate than the CES.
 
We are all going to post links that appear to be bias to the other side. I suspect that is the only way it can work.

heck, moderate sources are often accused of being biased by both sides, I have seen far left liberals accuse CNN of being conservative and I have seen those on the far right accuse the same station of being liberal.
 
And you const a burly refer to your opinion or belief.

Took me a few seconds to find "constantly" in there. I const a burly refer to my to-do list, but just when it starts to get whittled down, more items are added. :(

Stating sample size, methodology, probability error, benchmarks, etc, how is bias possible? They're just facts.

Exactly. It doesn't make any sense to question the details you posted, and I for one appreciate yer doing it. I can often fight my way through statistical design, but I don't have a whole lot of aptitude for it, which may explain why I just don't like it. I'm always eager to move on to the policy implications.

This issue can perhaps be understood by thinking of an omelet recipe. You might not like my favourite omelet, but does it make sense for you to question my statement of the ingredients and the steps involved in its production? They are what they are, right?

I am here to learn, teach and kill time.

You say yer here in part to learn. Well, the opportunity to do so is readily available. But in this case I'd say you refuse it. You seem to be not at all interested in facts; you want to talk about how the Obama administration is damaging the economy and lying to cover it up. You claim we actually lost 73K jobs in April. Did you post in last month's thread claiming that, while the CES showed we added only 203K, the number to look at was the 476K from the CPS? In December's thread, were you advising people not to be misled by the CES estimate of +274K, and to instead rely on the +958K CPS figure?

And btw, I'm of course familiar with the idiom, but I always say you really can't kill time — it's works the other way around. Always to be valued; never to be wasted. On the other hand, the most important things are timeless.

We are all going to post links that appear to be bias to the other side.

I know what you mean, but I try not to be one a "side." Well, as a Red Sox fan, yes, but not when it comes to public policy. My intent is to be open to what works.

>>far left liberals accuse CNN of being conservative … those on the far right accuse the same station of being liberal

I accuse it of being boring most of the time. The sobering thing is that when a real crisis hits, especially an international one, I go straight to them. Let's hope they can keep right on being boring.
 
I have every confidence that a typical eight-year-old could follow the format without a bit of difficulty: comments I'm responding to are preceded by two angle brackets; my responses are not. Is it really all that complicated? If it is, just don't bother reading my posts. Problem solved.

>>Use the " Reply with Quote " button, and then copy and paste the beginning and ending of the "Quote" function when you want to make additional replies. I know you can do it

I would simply type "
" if I wanted to, saving the clipboard for other material. And yet I choose not to. ☺[/QUOTE]

Lol !!

Seriously ? We have to adapt to your arbitrarily and ad hoc system ?

Thats absolutely ridiculous.
 
We have to adapt to your arbitrarily and ad hoc system ?

No, you don't; no one is forcing you or anyone else to read or respond to my posts.

My "system" is not ad hoc; I've used it for many years, most of them as an administrator in a very busy forum. Fwiw, the only people who have had a problem with it are those who disagree with my views and become discouraged at their inability to refute my arguments.

I might otherwise be baffled by claims that it creates any confusion whatsoever; I figure it's just a very weak form of excuse-making. Otoh, I suppose it may be true that some people just aren't very clever, e.g., those who blame the recent near-collapse of the financial sector on the CRA.
 
No, you don't; no one is forcing you or anyone else to read or respond to my posts.

My "system" is not ad hoc; I've used it for many years, most of them as an administrator in a very busy forum. Fwiw, the only people who have had a problem with it are those who disagree with my views and become discouraged at their inability to refute my arguments.

I might otherwise be baffled by claims that it creates any confusion whatsoever; I figure it's just a very weak form of excuse-making. Otoh, I suppose it may be true that some people just aren't very clever, e.g., those who blame the recent near-collapse of the financial sector on the CRA.

You know I have been on this earth 67 years and spent 35 years in the private sector, raised a family, sent two kids to college, and am the proud grandparent to 5 wonderful grandkids but after reading your posts I find myself so lacking in competing with the incredible knowledge that you have and experience in the world that I only hope that in my remaining years that I become just half as smart as you THINK you are

First of all glad to see that you finally have been able to learn the quote system which makes it much easier to respond to your posts line by line as well as to learn the incredible intelligence and wisdom of what you believe. Interesting however that I have not seen any evidence or valid links to support your statements which then lead me to believe that all you post is your own personal opinion and we all should understand the validity and credibility of personal opinions.

I find it absolutely shocking, I say, shocking that people like you ignore actual results and think only with your heart. You see results don't matter, history doesn't matter, only what you feel matters. You see if you just throw more money at the problem you certainly are going to solve the problem. Personal behavior doesn't matter in the liberal world for it is all textbook solutions to every problem. In the liberal world the 3.9 trillion dollar Federal govt. isn't big enough and the 50 states along with the local governments in those states even though they are closer to the people aren't responsible enough to solve their own problems so we need that massive central govt. with its bureaucrats to do it for us.

I only wish that I had learned in my earlier years how to spend someone else's money, to pass off personal responsibilities, to never accept blame for any mistake or poor choice that I made. Life would have been so much better if I had learned those things and of course being dependent on the Federal Bureaucrats doesn't matter.

Thanks for all the wisdom you spout in this forum. Where have you been my entire life?
 
I only hope that in my remaining years that I become just half as smart as you THINK you are

I hope you enjoyed yer passive-aggressive mini-rant.

>>you finally have been able to learn the quote system

I continue to post the same way. Are you continuing to have difficultly with it?

>>I have not seen any evidence or valid links to support your statements

Which statements do you feel I have not supported with adequate evidence?

>>I find it absolutely shocking … that people like you ignore actual results

Which actual results am I ignoring?

>>only what you feel matters … blah, blah, government sucks, blah

Same question. What is it in history that I'm not cognizant of? What personal behaviours am I not accounting for properly?

>>I only wish that I had learned in my earlier years how to spend someone else's money, to pass off personal responsibilities, to never accept blame for any mistake or poor choice that I made.

Whose money am I spending? What personal responsibilities am I shirking? What mistakes and poor choices have I made that I'm not accepting blame for?

Or is it others yer concerned about? Maybe the way I've lived my life is (barely) acceptable to you, but I'm an enabler at yer expense. We need more people out of public housing and under bridges. More malnourished children. More people without health insurance. And if they don't have the cash, let 'em bleed out in the ER parking lot.

>>Where have you been my entire life?

Awaiting the twist of fate that would allow me to enlighten you before it's too late. The Lord calls on you, and I am His messenger. Heed my voice.
 
I hope you enjoyed yer passive-aggressive mini-rant.

>>you finally have been able to learn the quote system

I continue to post the same way. Are you continuing to have difficultly with it?

>>I have not seen any evidence or valid links to support your statements

Which statements do you feel I have not supported with adequate evidence?

>>I find it absolutely shocking … that people like you ignore actual results

Which actual results am I ignoring?

>>only what you feel matters … blah, blah, government sucks, blah

Same question. What is it in history that I'm not cognizant of? What personal behaviours am I not accounting for properly?

>>I only wish that I had learned in my earlier years how to spend someone else's money, to pass off personal responsibilities, to never accept blame for any mistake or poor choice that I made.

Whose money am I spending? What personal responsibilities am I shirking? What mistakes and poor choices have I made that I'm not accepting blame for?

Or is it others yer concerned about? Maybe the way I've lived my life is (barely) acceptable to you, but I'm an enabler at yer expense. We need more people out of public housing and under bridges. More malnourished children. More people without health insurance. And if they don't have the cash, let 'em bleed out in the ER parking lot.

>>Where have you been my entire life?

Awaiting the twist of fate that would allow me to enlighten you before it's too late. The Lord calls on you, and I am His messenger. Heed my voice.

Post 1211 is right so rather than do it right all the time you resort to liberal tactics of only doing it right when you want to.

Yep, that typical liberal rant, let's starve kids, kill seniors, pollute the air, force people to live under bridges, let them bleed in the ER parking lots. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about as none of that occurs when people take responsibility for their actions. ER rooms are required to provide services, charities like St. Vincent de Paul feed children, homeless shelters are available all over the nation, have you tried to get anyone to use them?

You are unbelievable, naive, gullible, and very poorly informed


Your answer is never about personal responsibility and accountability, just throw more money at the problem. We have a 17.4 trillion dollar debt and the problems have no been solved. Not once have I seen a direct answer from you, what is your solution to the problems since liberalism hasn't solved it.
 
Post 1211 is right so rather than do it right all the time you resort to liberal tactics of only doing it right when you want to.

Wrong again. What a surprise.That post follows the pattern I always use. The first excerpt is in a linked text box. The second one is from the same person, but from a different post, hence it is in a box as well. The remaining excerpts are from different people … until … you get to the last one. I cite an excerpt from the same member (imagep) and the same post, and so no need, as I see it, to use another quote box. Readers know who said it and where it came from, in case they want the context. Liberalism — consistently correct. ☺

>>typical liberal rant, let's starve kids, kill seniors, pollute the air, force people to live under bridges, let them bleed in the ER parking lots.

Hey, I was just taking a guess at what you meant about forcing people to be responsible for themselves. I see now that you want hospital ERs to provide unpaid services, the cost of which gets passed on to everyone else, instead of helping people get insurance, which lowers costs for a variety of reasons. You want charities to provide food and shelter for those who need it. It may surprise you to know, although it shouldn't, that I would love to see all those needs met by private charities. Doesn't seem to happen.

>>You really have no clue as to what you are talking about as none of that occurs when people take responsibility for their actions.

I'm confused. None of what happens? Poverty? And what should we do when people fail to live up to their responsibilities?

>>homeless shelters are available all over the nation, have you tried to get anyone to use them?

I occasionally visit them in my work. They typically have waiting lists. That lousy Obama economy, don't ya know.

>>You are unbelievable, naive, gullible, and very poorly informed

In what sense?

>>Your answer is never about personal responsibility and accountability, just throw more money at the problem.

When did I say anything like that?

>>Not once have I seen a direct answer from you

An answer to what?

>>what is your solution to the problems since liberalism hasn't solved it.

Oh. An answer to that. My answer starts, I suppose, with private-public partnerships. People working together to solve problems. Basically the work I've been involved in for thirty-five years. Feels kinda lonely sometimes.
 
Wrong again. What a surprise.That post follows the pattern I always use. The first excerpt is in a linked text box. The second one is from the same person, but from a different post, hence it is in a box as well. The remaining excerpts are from different people … until … you get to the last one. I cite an excerpt from the same member (imagep) and the same post, and so no need, as I see it, to use another quote box. Readers know who said it and where it came from, in case they want the context. Liberalism — consistently correct. ☺

>>typical liberal rant, let's starve kids, kill seniors, pollute the air, force people to live under bridges, let them bleed in the ER parking lots.

Hey, I was just taking a guess at what you meant about forcing people to be responsible for themselves. I see now that you want hospital ERs to provide unpaid services, the cost of which gets passed on to everyone else, instead of helping people get insurance, which lowers costs for a variety of reasons. You want charities to provide food and shelter for those who need it. It may surprise you to know, although it shouldn't, that I would love to see all those needs met by private charities. Doesn't seem to happen.

>>You really have no clue as to what you are talking about as none of that occurs when people take responsibility for their actions.

I'm confused. None of what happens? Poverty? And what should we do when people fail to live up to their responsibilities?

>>homeless shelters are available all over the nation, have you tried to get anyone to use them?

I occasionally visit them in my work. They typically have waiting lists. That lousy Obama economy, don't ya know.

>>You are unbelievable, naive, gullible, and very poorly informed

In what sense?

>>Your answer is never about personal responsibility and accountability, just throw more money at the problem.

When did I say anything like that?

>>Not once have I seen a direct answer from you

An answer to what?

>>what is your solution to the problems since liberalism hasn't solved it.

Oh. An answer to that. My answer starts, I suppose, with private-public partnerships. People working together to solve problems. Basically the work I've been involved in for thirty-five years. Feels kinda lonely sometimes.


Bye, mmi, you aren't worth the effort. Learn how to respond to posts and put them in quotes and I will respond, until then your posts will be ignored. The solutions starts with leadership, something our Community Agitator President doesn't understand nor do his liberal supporters.
 
Bye, mmi, you aren't worth the effort. Learn how to respond to posts and put them in quotes and I will respond, until then your posts will be ignored. The solutions starts with leadership, something our Community Agitator President doesn't understand nor do his liberal supporters.

Just more of the same excuse-making.

And yours is the typical liberal response when you don't get your way. Fact, your post was difficult to read and impossible to respond to point by point but then typical liberalism takes over.Learn how to use this forum and I will be happy to engage you and make you look foolish by offering actual verifiable facts.

If you cannot do that then I suggest you move to another country more in line with your ideology as liberalism is killing this country and its economy. Maybe that is what you want because this economy has survived centuries and generated a lot of personal wealth that you are jealous about.

As I said, I don't think you have anything to use to make me look foolish, I'm not leaving the country, and I do not seek wealth.

This time, yer discouraged because "effort" doesn't win a debate. Once again, a young child wouldn't have any problem following my posts and responding to them.

By coincidence, I haven't used any angle brackets in this post. Does that make me again "worth the effort," and can I therefore anticipate responses to the questions I asked in my previous post?

President Obama and his liberal base have displayed enough leadership to have brought a number of "solutions" to the country. You know the list by now:

9.2 million private-sector jobs added in four-and-a-half years, a decline in deficits from 10% of GDP to 2.8%, a profit on TARP — those are some of the highlights anyway.

We haven't yet been able to lead toward achieving immigration reform and raising the minimum wage. Mr. Boehner's weak leadership and the continuing presence of fifty or so Tea Party types in the House are an obstacle we've not yer overcome. Doesn't look like much can be done on that in this cycle, but perhaps in 2016 we can construct an electoral drainpipe to remove a sufficient amount of that material.
 
Just more of the same excuse-making.



As I said, I don't think you have anything to use to make me look foolish, I'm not leaving the country, and I do not seek wealth.

This time, yer discouraged because "effort" doesn't win a debate. Once again, a young child wouldn't have any problem following my posts and responding to them.

By coincidence, I haven't used any angle brackets in this post. Does that make me again "worth the effort," and can I therefore anticipate responses to the questions I asked in my previous post?

President Obama and his liberal base have displayed enough leadership to have brought a number of "solutions" to the country. You know the list by now:

9.2 million private-sector jobs added in four-and-a-half years, a decline in deficits from 10% of GDP to 2.8%, a profit on TARP — those are some of the highlights anyway.

We haven't yet been able to lead toward achieving immigration reform and raising the minimum wage. Mr. Boehner's weak leadership and the continuing presence of fifty or so Tea Party types in the House are an obstacle we've not yer overcome. Doesn't look like much can be done on that in this cycle, but perhaps in 2016 we can construct an electoral drainpipe to remove a sufficient amount of that material.

I just wanted to pop in mmi to let you know I haven't forgotten, and will be able to respond about the CRA if you still want tomorrow.

On this post, I agree that Boehner has been at best a place holder of a speaker, but when you speak of these 4.5 million jobs, what is the criteria for counting them?

I remember during the bailouts they were counting road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?
 
Hey buddy

able to respond about the CRA if you still want tomorrow.

Absolutely. Yer not consulting with bankers and planning a smackdown, are you?

>>4.5 million jobs

Sorry, do you mean 9.2 million?

>>what is the criteria for counting them?

Contributions to the DNC?

>>road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?

Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)

BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.
 
Just more of the same excuse-making.



As I said, I don't think you have anything to use to make me look foolish, I'm not leaving the country, and I do not seek wealth.

This time, yer discouraged because "effort" doesn't win a debate. Once again, a young child wouldn't have any problem following my posts and responding to them.

By coincidence, I haven't used any angle brackets in this post. Does that make me again "worth the effort," and can I therefore anticipate responses to the questions I asked in my previous post?

President Obama and his liberal base have displayed enough leadership to have brought a number of "solutions" to the country. You know the list by now:

9.2 million private-sector jobs added in four-and-a-half years, a decline in deficits from 10% of GDP to 2.8%, a profit on TARP — those are some of the highlights anyway.

We haven't yet been able to lead toward achieving immigration reform and raising the minimum wage. Mr. Boehner's weak leadership and the continuing presence of fifty or so Tea Party types in the House are an obstacle we've not yer overcome. Doesn't look like much can be done on that in this cycle, but perhaps in 2016 we can construct an electoral drainpipe to remove a sufficient amount of that material.

See, you can post using the quote function accurately

Love your data but now for the rest of the story. In December 2007 when the recession began there were 146 million Americans working and today that number is 145 million working Americans almost 7 years later so where is your 9.2 million increase in employment? Guess you can pick a point in time and come up with whatever you want but the reality is we aren't better off than we were when the recession began it is due to lack of leadership along with economic policies that do not allow the private sector the incentive to grow.

Decline in deficit as a percent of GDP? LOL, do we pay debt service on the percentage of GDP or the actual debt? Liberal logic is flawed. Again if you drive up the debt enough and Obama has added 6.8 trillion to the debt in 6 years according to the Treasury site which I posted the link to over the weekend you can get that percentage change and actual debt to whatever you want it to be but is it accurate and a true picture of reality? TARP was a loan and was paid back with interest so making a profit should have reduced the deficit, where is that payback and interest in the 2009-2010 deficits?

You buy what you are told and ignore reality because that is what you want to believe. You seem to lack a basic understanding of history and what our Founders created and that was a small limited central govt. with a part time legislature as evidenced by the 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. we have today and liberals like you clamoring for more. Facts, logic, and common sense aren't on your side.
 
Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)
Close. The reference period is the week before the survey (usually) so employed are those who during the reference week, worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm.

BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.
Ummm what do you mean "adjusting for the decline in public sector employment?" Why would you do that? And using the CPS employment data, 145,669,000 in April 2014 minus 138,013,000 in December 2009 equals 7,656,000. How did you get over 9 million? Exactly what adjustments did you make?
 
Hey buddy



Absolutely. Yer not consulting with bankers and planning a smackdown, are you?

>>4.5 million jobs

Sorry, do you mean 9.2 million?

>>what is the criteria for counting them?

Contributions to the DNC?

>>road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?

Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)

BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.

Bill Clinton and the Democrats CHANGED the CRA law in 1995 while he Co-opted the two largest GSEs into Buying and then Bundling and the Securitizing Sub-Prime Loans.

6 Years before the Banks created their First Sub-Prime backed Security Freddie Mac Guaranteed 380 Million dollars in Sub-Prime securities.

Those 1995 CRA changes allowed Fannie and Freddie to claim HUD "affordable housing" credit by purchasing Sub-Prime loans and Securities.

Clinton also increased their Sub-Prime quota to 40 percent.
 
Hey buddy



Absolutely. Yer not consulting with bankers and planning a smackdown, are you?

>>4.5 million jobs

Sorry, do you mean 9.2 million?

>>what is the criteria for counting them?

Contributions to the DNC?

>>road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?

Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)

BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.

I did get a chuckle out of the contributions part...but, no not consulting with anyone...I do want to just caveat though, I am not possibly as adept as you might be with the different reports and such, I don't look at them for a living like you, so a little latitude when I compile my post would be appreciated, I'm just a simple guy. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom