• 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!

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment Hitting 10.3% in February

Again, not a woman. But you must have had a bad experience with females if you call people who treat you badly as females automatically.



Not relevant to my post.

It is merely an example of you entirely failing to fact check (or even properly read) your own data.



No, it didn't. The Comptroller said at the moment Texas was operating at a deficit, and that unless there was a fix for the upcoming biannual fiscal year, the deficit would be $10 billion. So they were in a deficit in the current year, and projections for the upcoming were $10 billion. You did not bother to read what she said. At least 10 other people pointed this out to you.



That was the $10 billion. You failed to notice she said that the state was in a deficit at the moment. Meaning she was talking about TWO, read them TWO different deficits.



So you don't actually have a rebuttal? Check.



You're the liberal remember.

You know, staying on topic is helpful. But if you did that, you'd lose even faster.

If TX operated at a Deficit it violated the TX Constitution. I live in TX so what makes you an expert? Oh, I forgot, you are an expert on everything.
 
And that stopped them before?

Btw, look up what "cumulative" means.

And Nominal. And Real.

Good lord, Kid, realize you aren't the expert you think you are. TX operates on a two year budget that has to be balanced and was. There is a projected deficit for the next two years that the legislature is working on now. It will balance the budget without raising taxes and without touching the 9 billion dollar rainy day fund. Carry on, bet you live in California but are an expert on other states' finances.
 
Good lord, Kid, realize you aren't the expert you think you are.

This coming from a user who cannot define "operating deficit" despite being asked to a dozen times.

TX operates on a two year budget that has to be balanced and was.

On PAPER. However, OPERATING the government from time to time never results in the inflows matching the outflows. So, while on paper the 2010/2011 budget was balanced, the actual balances of the funds of the Texas government did not match, thereby generating a deficit.

You basically don't get this because you don't understand what an "operating deficit" means. You seem to think that just because on paper the budget is balanced that means the actual operations are balanced. Tax revenues don't march in line with budget projections. Furthermore, in biannual fiscal planning, the end of the 2nd year doesn't often allow for rebudgeting in the same fashion as the original biannual budgetary process.

There is a projected deficit for the next two years that the legislature is working on now. It will balance the budget without raising taxes and without touching the 9 billion dollar rainy day fund. Carry on, bet you live in California but are an expert on other states' finances.

See above. You don't get it. At all.
 
This coming from a user who cannot define "operating deficit" despite being asked to a dozen times.



On PAPER. However, OPERATING the government from time to time never results in the inflows matching the outflows. So, while on paper the 2010/2011 budget was balanced, the actual balances of the funds of the Texas government did not match, thereby generating a deficit.

You basically don't get this because you don't understand what an "operating deficit" means. You seem to think that just because on paper the budget is balanced that means the actual operations are balanced. Tax revenues don't march in line with budget projections. Furthermore, in biannual fiscal planning, the end of the 2nd year doesn't often allow for rebudgeting in the same fashion as the original biannual budgetary process.



See above. You don't get it. At all.

Right, I don't get it at all, why does anyone waste their time with you. I live in TX, why do TX finances bother you so much? Don't you have enough problems in your state?
 
Right, I don't get it at all

Want to define "operating deficit" for me? Or are you going to run away for the 13th time?

why does anyone waste their time with you. I live in TX, why do TX finances bother you so much? Don't you have enough problems in your state?

None of the above. It's just an example of you being wrong, failing to fact check and then having the gall to say others don't get it.

Notice you aren't able to refute me.
 
Want to define "operating deficit" for me? Or are you going to run away for the 13th time?



None of the above. It's just an example of you being wrong, failing to fact check and then having the gall to say others don't get it.

Notice you aren't able to refute me.

As I have stated over and over again, you are a legend in your own mind. In your mind no one can ever refute you. Have a good one.
 
As I have stated over and over again, you are a legend in your own mind. In your mind no one can ever refute you. Have a good one.

I guess that's why you never try. Run away. For the 13th time. You called Sheik that too. Even after he quoted the BLS saying it was cumulative. I guess citing data within the links you provided as evidence as to why your arguments is wrong is "legend in your own mind."

"that's cumulative. It says so right there. In the link you provided. you're wrong"

"you are a legend in your own mind!"
 
I guess that's why you never try. Run away. For the 13th time. You called Sheik that too. Even after he quoted the BLS saying it was cumulative. I guess citing data within the links you provided as evidence as to why your arguments is wrong is "legend in your own mind."

"that's cumulative. It says so right there. In the link you provided. you're wrong"

"you are a legend in your own mind!"

I have seen no evidence that Discouraged workers is cumulative and why would it be since none of the other numbers are cumulative. Here is what the Employment Summary states

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.0 million discouraged workers in February, a decrease of 184,000 from a year earlier.

So where is the evidence that the number is cumulative and not monthly? I suggest you don't buy information given you by another liberal just because that is what you want to believe. Maybe you ought to do a better job fact checking since you take great pride in your research.
 
Last edited:
I have seen no evidence

Because you never look.

that Discouraged workers is cumulative and why would it be since none of the other numbers are cumulative. Here is what the Employment Summary states

RIGHT THERE IS EVIDENCE. If the data was monthly increases, then discouraged workers from Feb 2010 to Feb 2011 would have increased by over 12 million, resulting in a decline of 12.184 million discouraged workers. Instead, the decline was 184,000. Furthermore it says TOTAL for the month. Not INCREASE from prior month. Seriously, did you entirely skip math in school?

Furthermore, a GIANT ASS SIGN it's cumulative is that the first line is "NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE." If this was monthly increases, it would outpace the population of the entire country within 5 months. So yes, the other numbers are indeed cumulative. Table A-14 is cumulative as well. If the table is not cumulative, there is a title for the change either in total or percentage, table B-4 for example.

Good grief. You've been citing this data and you can't read it properly?

Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted

So where is the evidence that the number is cumulative and not monthly? I suggest you don't buy information given you by another liberal just because that is what you want to believe. Maybe you ought to do a better job fact checking since you take great pride in your research.

See above. I'm embarrassed for you.
 
Actually, everyone is at fault here. The corps went crazy, the government didn't regulate them and the people didn't do their job to make sure that the government worked for them. The crisis started before Obama was in office, yet he continued it by pushing for a stimulus which was not enough. To blame these problems solely on Obama is idiotic and childish at best.

He's not interested in that. Anyone who is blaming the current ecnomic state on Obama is completely ignorant (hopefully willingly) and mostly likely baiting to begin with. This is simply one more talking point that is one giant non sequitur and it generally serves no purpose.
 
Because you never look.



RIGHT THERE IS EVIDENCE. If the data was monthly increases, then discouraged workers from Feb 2010 to Feb 2011 would have increased by over 12 million, resulting in a decline of 12.184 million discouraged workers. Instead, the decline was 184,000. Furthermore it says TOTAL for the month. Not INCREASE from prior month. Seriously, did you entirely skip math in school?

Furthermore, a GIANT ASS SIGN it's cumulative is that the first line is "NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE." If this was monthly increases, it would outpace the population of the entire country within 5 months. So yes, the other numbers are indeed cumulative. Table A-14 is cumulative as well. If the table is not cumulative, there is a title for the change either in total or percentage, table B-4 for example.

Good grief. You've been citing this data and you can't read it properly?

Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted



See above. I'm embarrassed for you.

Actually you ought to be embarrassed for yourself, if it was cumulative they wouldn't comparing it to a year ago but instead last month. Keep diverting however from the fact that 1 million Americans dropped off the unemployment roles in February which is what lowered the unemployment rate.
 
He's not interested in that. Anyone who is blaming the current ecnomic state on Obama is completely ignorant (hopefully willingly) and mostly likely baiting to begin with. This is simply one more talking point that is one giant non sequitur and it generally serves no purpose.

No one is blaming Obama for the economic mess he inherited although as a member of Congress he is partially responsible for not preventing it. Bush is blamed but no one blames Congress for doing little or nothing and it was under Democratic control. What I blame Obama for is the economic policy that did nothing to solve the economic problem but instead prolonged it as the numbers show.
 
What I blame Obama for is the economic policy that did nothing to solve the economic problem but instead prolonged it as the numbers show.
The economy was in such horrible shape when he took office, preventing the country from falling into another Great Depression was about the only thing Obama could do. Now you're crying because he didn't do enough for the economy?
The economy is growing, the stock market is up. That's what the numbers show.

Republicans controlled everything for 6 of the 8 years Bush was president. The economy started to tank in '06, you let the republicans off the hook and expect Obama to fix their mess in two years. Why?
 
USA_1;1059329394]The economy was in such horrible shape when he took office, preventing the country from falling into another Great Depression was about the only thing Obama could do. Now you're crying because he didn't do enough for the economy?

The economy was in recession when Obama took office but he was part of the Congress that did nothing to prevent it. We came out of recession in June 2009 so what exactly did Obama do to prevent a great depression? Obama took a crisis and used it to his advantage to sell a leftwing agenda that prolonged the crisis yet you buy the hretoric. Economists claim it was TARP that saved us from a great depression and TARP was Bush's

The economy is growing, the stock market is up. That's what the numbers show.

So now a growing stock market is a good thing? Was it a good thing when it was over 14000? Economy is growing and that is what a private sector economy does over time.


Republicans controlled everything for 6 of the 8 years Bush was president. The economy started to tank in '06, you let the republicans off the hook and expect Obama to fix their mess in two years. Why?

Republicans controlled the entire Congress from 2003-2006 and I suggest you check out the economic growth and job creation during that period of time. Then compare what happened when the Democrats took control. BEA.gov and BLS.gov will provide you with the answers. The economy did not begin to tank in 2006 as GDP growth shows. Stop buying the Obama and leftwing talking points as the facts make you look foolish.
 
USA_1;1059329394]The economy was in such horrible shape when he took office, preventing the country from falling into another Great Depression was about the only thing Obama could do. Now you're crying because he didn't do enough for the economy?

The economy was in recession when Obama took office but he was part of the Congress that did nothing to prevent it. We came out of recession in June 2009 so what exactly did Obama do to prevent a great depression? Obama took a crisis and used it to his advantage to sell a leftwing agenda that prolonged the crisis yet you buy the hretoric. Economists claim it was TARP that saved us from a great depression and TARP was Bush's



So now a growing stock market is a good thing? Was it a good thing when it was over 14000? Economy is growing and that is what a private sector economy does over time.




Republicans controlled the entire Congress from 2003-2006 and I suggest you check out the economic growth and job creation during that period of time. Then compare what happened when the Democrats took control. BEA.gov and BLS.gov will provide you with the answers. The economy did not begin to tank in 2006 as GDP growth shows. Stop buying the Obama and leftwing talking points as the facts make you look foolish.


Employment is what is known as a lagging factor, in that it is the last thing to pick up when an economy gets going again. Employment might have been OK from 2003-2006, but that's only because the cluster**** economic policies had not yet taken their toll. It takes a while. When it did kick in, it kicked in in spades.

chart-020510-update.gif


Part of the recovery of jobs does go to Obama, but a lot of it (I think about half, goes to Bush). Yes, the graph is misleading. You DO have to give some of the credit to Bush for helping in the recovery. Again, employment is a lagging factor. Although jobs were bleeding away badly during Bush's last year, it took at least that long for TARP to kick in.

In the latter part of his administration, Bush did have the common sense to kick the crazy Neocons to the curb. So where are the Neocons now? Hijacking Tea Party movements. That's where they are. You didn't think they would go away quietly, did you?
 
Last edited:
Employment is what is known as a lagging factor, in that it is the last thing to pick up when an economy gets going again. Employment might have been OK from 2003-2006, but that's only because the cluster**** economic policies had not yet taken their toll. It takes a while. When it did kick in, it kicked in in spades.

chart-020510-update.gif


Part of the recovery of jobs does go to Obama, but a lot of it (I think about half, goes to Bush).

You are missing a major component, discouraged workers who are no longer counted. If you take a million people off the roles of unemployment what do you expect the number to look like? There are still two million fewer people employed today than when Obama took office and that was before adding 3.5 trillion to the debt. Your chart is distorted.
 
Actually you ought to be embarrassed for yourself, if it was cumulative they wouldn't comparing it to a year ago but instead last month.

Is that your argument? How does that disprove it's cumulative? The BLS compares it to last year to adjust for seasonal changes. Seriously. You expect people to take you seriously and you can't even properly read the data?

If it was monthly changes, the population of the US would be expanding by 80 million people a month according to the non-labor force population alone.

Furthermore, it if monthly changes, the population of the US would have expanded by 153 MILLION people in the labor force.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

Keep diverting however from the fact that 1 million Americans dropped off the unemployment roles in February which is what lowered the unemployment rate.

Wow. Total Epic Fail.

Civilian Jan 2011 population was 153,186 million. Feb 2011 was 153,246. if a million Americans left the labor force, then Jan 2011 should have been 154,186 million. The fact that unemployment went down with the total labor force expanding is a good sign the recovery is really underway.

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

This is really embarrassing how badly you can't figure out basic charts.

The population of the US is a little over 300 million. If the non percentage charts were monthly changes, then the US population would literally be doubling every month. Doesn't that suggest that you are reading the charts entirely wrong?
 
Last edited:
Republicans controlled the entire Congress from 2003-2006 and I suggest you check out the economic growth and job creation during that period of time.

Yeah because they benefited from exceptionally low rates, lax regulation and Fannie/Freddie who under the Bush Ownership Society basically eliminated responsible mortgage creation barriers. We are paying for their excesses now.

Then compare what happened when the Democrats took control. BEA.gov and BLS.gov will provide you with the answers.

You should not cite things you have demonstrated you do not understand.
 
obvious Child;1059330099]Is that your argument? How does that disprove it's cumulative? The BLS compares it to last year to adjust for seasonal changes. Seriously. You expect people to take you seriously and you can't even properly read the data?

Last time I checked but could be wrong February 2010 was in the same season as February 2011. Keep making a fool of yourself. Apparently in your world employment and unemployment numbers are monthly but discouraged workers are cumulative. That is liberal logic.

If it was monthly changes, the population of the US would be expanding by 80 million people a month according to the non-labor force population alone.

People leave and join the work force every month, 12 million a year during the Obama term isn't that unrealistic since his economic plan has been such a disaster.


Wow. Total Epic Fail.

Civilian Jan 2011 population was 153,186 million. Feb 2011 was 153,246. if a million Americans left the labor force, then Jan 2011 should have been 154,186 million. The fact that unemployment went down with the total labor force expanding is a good sign the recovery is really underway.

Guess you better tell BLS that they got it wrong, 1 million people dropped out of the unemployment roles NOT THE LABOR FORCE in February. They stopped looking for jobs, sorry, but that is reality that liberals don't want to address.
 
Last edited:
Yeah because they benefited from exceptionally low rates, lax regulation and Fannie/Freddie who under the Bush Ownership Society basically eliminated responsible mortgage creation barriers. We are paying for their excesses now.



You should not cite things you have demonstrated you do not understand.

that damn Bush, the devil reincarnated! Amazing how a dumb cowboy from TX could screw up the entire economy all by himself with a Democrat controlled Congress. Says a lot about the Democrat oversight and control. Looks to me like there are a lot of OC's in the Democrat Congress.
 
Last time I checked but could be wrong February 2010 was in the same season as February 2011.

THAT IS WHY THEY COMPARE SAME MONTH TO SAME MONTH. Good God you are dense. By comparing last year same month to current year same month they remove the seasonal adjustment issue.

Good grief you cite data you can't even read.

Keep making a fool of yourself. Apparently in your world employment and unemployment numbers are monthly but discouraged workers are cumulative. That is liberal logic.

Apparently so is thinking the US population doesn't double every month. If the charts were monthly changes, then 300 million additional people would be added every month to the total charts.

The fact that doesn't ring a bell that maybe it is cumulative should tell you something about your critical thinking process.

People leave and join the work force every month, 12 million a year during the Obama term isn't that unrealistic since his economic plan has been such a disaster.

15 millions people are unemployed. You are basically saying nearly that many are discouraged despite no data supporting you.

Guess you better tell BLS that they got it wrong, 1 million people dropped out of the unemployment roles NOT THE LABOR FORCE in February. They stopped looking for jobs, sorry, but that is reality that liberals don't want to address.

No, I am merely reciting the BLS data properly. If a million people dropped out of the labor force, then the out of labor force table should show an increase of 1 million. It does not.

Christ sakes You have no idea how to read the tables at all.
 
THAT IS WHY THEY COMPARE SAME MONTH TO SAME MONTH. Good God you are dense. By comparing last year same month to current year same month they remove the seasonal adjustment issue.

Good grief you cite data you can't even read.



Apparently so is thinking the US population doesn't double every month. If the charts were monthly changes, then 300 million additional people would be added every month to the total charts.

The fact that doesn't ring a bell that maybe it is cumulative should tell you something about your critical thinking process.



15 millions people are unemployed. You are basically saying nearly that many are discouraged despite no data supporting you.



No, I am merely reciting the BLS data properly. If a million people dropped out of the labor force, then the out of labor force table should show an increase of 1 million. It does not.

Christ sakes You have no idea how to read the tables at all.

I need to ask you a question, what grade in school are you? Discouraged workers DO NOT DROP OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE, they aren't counted as unemployed. The real unemployment per bls is a million more than reported due to the discouraged workers. Ask your teacher to explain it to you?

Here are the discouraged workers by month

Discouraged workers in Thousands

2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020
 
I need to ask you a question, what grade in school are you? Discouraged workers DO NOT DROP OUT OF THE LABOR FORCE, they aren't counted as unemployed.

I never said they dropped out of the work force. Can you READ?

The real unemployment per bls is a million more than reported due to the discouraged workers. Ask your teacher to explain it to you?

I know what U6 is. I was citing it long before you got here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/94044-us-total-population.html#post1059330797

Btw, you are wrong as usual. It's still funny how you are arguing the US population double monthly.
 
Back
Top Bottom