• 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!

Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

Redress said:
And you continually have your misuse of those charts pointed out. Has not slowed you down in the slightest.
Click to expand...

How have I misused charts and be specific, they are what they are. As I pointed out to Jet which of course you ignored percentage change is worthless unless the base is the same which it isn't when it comes to employment and unemployment. The higher the base the lower the percentage change when it comes to the unemployment and employment numbers, the same with GDP. Prove me charts were manipulated.
 
Redress said:
:spin:

Several million jobs saved or created, GDP growth when it may not have been there, and all you can do is whine about it and try and distort.
Click to expand...

That is what liberals do, provide information that cannot be proven. The fact is BLS doesn't show saved jobs and BEA.gov shows very meager economic growth. The Treasury shows over a trillion dollars spent to generate 2 million less employed, 3.5 trillion added to the debt, and 2.8% GDP growth. You really need to raise your standards for success.
 
Redress said:
:spin:

Several million jobs saved or created, GDP growth when it may not have been there, and all you can do is whine about it and try and distort.
Click to expand...


Please tell us how to calculate a "saved" job.....Talk about spin. By that terminology every job in America that didn't undergo a layoff, or company shutdown was saved.


j-mac
 
Conservative said:
How have I misused charts and be specific, they are what they are. As I pointed out to Jet which of course you ignored percentage change is worthless unless the base is the same which it isn't when it comes to employment and unemployment. The higher the base the lower the percentage change when it comes to the unemployment and employment numbers, the same with GDP. Prove me charts were manipulated.
Click to expand...

Like your claim that the number of discouraged workers is how many become discouraged each month, or pointing to increased revenue after the Bush tax cuts as proof that tax cuts generate revenue.
 
Conservative said:
That is what liberals do, provide information that cannot be proven. The fact is BLS doesn't show saved jobs and BEA.gov shows very meager economic growth. The Treasury shows over a trillion dollars spent to generate 2 million less employed, 3.5 trillion added to the debt, and 2.8% GDP growth. You really need to raise your standards for success.
Click to expand...

You where the one who linked the the CBO analysis, and you cannot disprove it at all. You are the one who is spinning what happens. You cannot accept that the economy is getting better, and so you have to spin it any way you can to try and make good news bad.
 
j-mac said:
Please tell us how to calculate a "saved" job.....Talk about spin. By that terminology every job in America that didn't undergo a layoff, or company shutdown was saved.


j-mac
Click to expand...

The CBO is the foremost respected authority. The came up with the numbers from analysis of the data.
 
Redress said:
The CBO is the foremost respected authority. The came up with the numbers from analysis of the data.
Click to expand...


Like I said before, the CBO can only put out conclusions based on numbers given it specifically. It can not independently look at a situation and come up with the actual analysis. Also throw into the mix that Elmendorf was called into the Oval Office, surrounded 10 to 1 and told to play ball, it is no surprise that their numbers match the talking points of Obama's administration. But I assure you we the American people are being lied to.


j-mac
 
Redress said:
Like your claim that the number of discouraged workers is how many become discouraged each month, or pointing to increased revenue after the Bush tax cuts as proof that tax cuts generate revenue.
Click to expand...

Does it matter whether or not they are monthly or cumulative? My question is why are all the other numbers monthly but discouraged workers cumulative? I believe they are monthly and posted why. Whether or not they are is irrelevant as they are dropped from being counted as unemployed.

You claimed I manipulated the chart when the reality is the information is as I posted. Reducing the unemployment by a million is going to do what to the unemployment rate?

As for the increased revenue, again tell the U.S. Treasury they got it wrong. I post the charts and comment on them. If you can prove that govt. revenue went down from a non partisan source then do so.
 
j-mac said:
Like I said before, the CBO can only put out conclusions based on numbers given it specifically. It can not independently look at a situation and come up with the actual analysis. Also throw into the mix that Elmendorf was called into the Oval Office, surrounded 10 to 1 and told to play ball, it is no surprise that their numbers match the talking points of Obama's administration. But I assure you we the American people are being lied to.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So all you have to counter the numbers is unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense. The will to believe what you want is strong in you.
 
Redress said:
The CBO is the foremost respected authority. The came up with the numbers from analysis of the data.
Click to expand...

The CBO is respected only when it comes to the conclusion that liberals want, when it contradicts that liberal opinion the CBO is ignored.
 
Conservative said:
The CBO is respected only when it comes to the conclusion that liberals want, when it contradicts that liberal opinion the CBO is ignored.
Click to expand...

Seems you forgot about Bush's prescription drug program...same **** happened back then as now.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Seems you forgot about Bush's prescription drug program...same **** happened back then as now.
Click to expand...

CBO always makes projections based upon what the Congress tells them. Any idea how accurate CBO projections are? The further out the projections the less accurate.
 
Redress said:
So all you have to counter the numbers is unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense. The will to believe what you want is strong in you.
Click to expand...


Unsubstantiated conspiracy? I beg your pardon....Remember:

Jesus. This is wildly inappropriate.

After a week in which Doug Elmendorf, the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said that Congressional health care overhauls would balloon federal health care obligations by $240 billion over the next decade, the President Obama called him into the Oval Office for a little chat.

But Elmendorf didn't just get leaned on by the president. He was outnumbered by something like 10-1

CBO Chief Called Into the Principal's Oval Office | Rolling Stone Politics | National Affairs | Tim Dickinson on Political News
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure you do.....


j-mac
 
Redress said:
Like your claim that the number of discouraged workers is how many become discouraged each month, or pointing to increased revenue after the Bush tax cuts as proof that tax cuts generate revenue.
Click to expand...

So I guess you cannot find where I manipulated the charts which of course I knew.
 
Conservative said:
CBO always makes projections based upon what the Congress tells them. Any idea how accurate CBO projections are? The further out the projections the less accurate.
Click to expand...


Absolutely!

From Elmendorf's own blog:

Sometimes, however, the pace of legislative activity does not allow time for a careful review of the specific language of a lengthy bill. Therefore, we sometimes provide preliminary analyses of legislation based on specifications given to us by committee or leadership staff. In those cases—for example, our preliminary analysis of health care legislation introduced in the House of Representatives in October 2009—we state clearly the limitations of that analysis compared with a standard formal cost estimate (in this case, noting that “the agency has not thoroughly reviewed the introduced legislation”).

Director's Blog » About CBO
Click to expand...

Yes, sometimes it's just a guess on numbers provided him in this instance by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama....Just peachy.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Absolutely!

From Elmendorf's own blog:



Yes, sometimes it's just a guess on numbers provided him in this instance by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama....Just peachy.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Cherries pick much? If you would have gone a bit further down in his blog, you would have found this link to another of his blogs .

Director's Blog » Blog Archive » The Effects of Health Reform on the Federal Budget



Where he had this to say.



In combination, the initial legislation and the subsequent reconciliation act that modified it will generate changes in direct spending and revenue that will reduce federal deficits by $143 billion during the 2010-2019 period.
 
donc said:
Cherries pick much? If you would have gone a bit further down in his blog, you would have found this link to another of his blogs .

Director's Blog » Blog Archive » The Effects of Health Reform on the Federal Budget



Where he had this to say.



In combination, the initial legislation and the subsequent reconciliation act that modified it will generate changes in direct spending and revenue that will reduce federal deficits by $143 billion during the 2010-2019 period.
Click to expand...


BAWAHAAAA! Was that before or after the "chat" Obama and ten of his goons, ahem, I mean aids had with Elmendorf? Hahahaha.


j-mac
 
Conservative said:
Does it matter whether or not they are monthly or cumulative? My question is why are all the other numbers monthly but discouraged workers cumulative? I believe they are monthly and posted why. Whether or not they are is irrelevant as they are dropped from being counted as unemployed.

You claimed I manipulated the chart when the reality is the information is as I posted. Reducing the unemployment by a million is going to do what to the unemployment rate?
Click to expand...

It's a huge difference. They posted the number, while you claimed that was the change in the number, two totally different things. Let's say we look at employment for the last three years, theoretical scenario.
Year 1 - 178
Year 2 - 189
Year 3 - 165
If this showed change in, it would be fantastic - a 165 person growth in year 3! On the other hand, if it shows the number of employed, it means a drop of 24 people, which is not so good.
 
iamitter said:
It's a huge difference. They posted the number, while you claimed that was the change in the number, two totally different things. Let's say we look at employment for the last three years, theoretical scenario.
Year 1 - 178
Year 2 - 189
Year 3 - 165
If this showed change in, it would be fantastic - a 165 person growth in year 3! On the other hand, if it shows the number of employed, it means a drop of 24 people, which is not so good.
Click to expand...

That is why I always prefer employment numbers to unemployment numbers but responded to this thread because it is about unemployment. Do you acknowledge that discouraged workers aren't counted as unemployed? The number for February was one million and if you take one million out of the unemployed what do you expect the rate to do?
 
Conservative said:
Except for the actual results. Comparing what Bush implemented to Obamacare however is quite a stretch. Bush interjected competition and free markets into the Prescription Drug program

Bush drug plan beats cost mark - Washington Times
Click to expand...

I wasn't disputing your claim about the CBO, nor was I comparing the costs of Bush's program to the costs of healthcare reform. I pointing out the hypocrisy in your opinion that only liberals cite the CBO when it supports their conclusions and agenda, when in reality both sides have been guilty of doing so.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I wasn't disputing your claim about the CBO, nor was I comparing the costs of Bush's program to the costs of healthcare reform. I pointing out the hypocrisy in your opinion that only liberals cite the CBO when it supports their conclusions and agenda, when in reality both sides have been guilty of doing so.
Click to expand...

I only use CBO to make fun of those that use CBO as being an accurate source. I use bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Sites as they are more accurate than any other because they use actual data not assumptions which CBO uses.
 
Conservative said:
Worked for whom? 2 million less people employed today than when Obama took office and 3.5 trillion added to the debt. Economic growth 2.8%. Those are successes to you?
Click to expand...

When you posted this in post #301
(Never overlooked it at all but what do you expect when you spend over a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy
Click to expand...
Note the bolded part.

Kinda looks to me that you were just bitchen about the cost Obama had to spend saving us from a bush depression instead of the bush recession that we are climbing out of now.:2wave:
 
donc said:
When you posted this in post #301 Note the bolded part.

Kinda looks to me that you were just bitchen about the cost Obama had to spend saving us from a bush depression instead of the bush recession that we are climbing out of now.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Stimulating the economy is one thing, generating these type results is another. You seem to think that generting these kind of results is a success. Love it when you show ignorance calling it the Bush depression as it is nothing more than attempts at baiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom