• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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.

2012 Democratic National Convention, Sept 3-6, Dicussion Thread

Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Has Clinton spoken yet?
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Redress said:
I remember discussion of those very things in the 70's. Sorry, but you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Then you were misinformed then and wrong

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not count discouraged workers as unemployed but rather refers to them as only "marginally attached to the labor force".[5][6][7] This means that the officially measured unemployment captures so-called "frictional unemployment" and not much else.[8] This has led some economists to believe that the actual unemployment rate in the United States is higher than what is officially reported while others suggest that discouraged workers voluntarily choose not to work.[9] Nonetheless, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has published the discouraged worker rate in alternative measures of labor underutilization under U-4 since 1994 when the most recent redesign of the CPS was implemented.[
Click to expand...
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Redress said:
Your own source shows you in the lie: Discouraged worker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The very next paragraph from what you quoted:



Funny how you did not quote that part....
Click to expand...

Where did I say that Discouraged workers weren't tracked? What I stated but apparently you have trouble with comprehension is that discouraged workers were removed from the U-3 number in 1992 but apparently that was 1994 and the U-3 number is the official unemployment number. Discouraged workers prior to 1994 were counted in the official numbers. Get someone to help you if you still don't understand my statement
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Oh wow,the dems have an illegal immigrant speaking at the podium.....Isnt aiding and abetting an illegal immigrant against the law?
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Conservative said:
Where did I say that Discouraged workers weren't tracked? What I stated but apparently you have trouble with comprehension is that discouraged workers were removed from the U-3 number in 1992 but apparently that was 1994 and the U-3 number is the official unemployment number. Discouraged workers prior to 1994 were counted in the official numbers. Get someone to help you if you still don't understand my statement
Click to expand...

And now you are misrepresenting the conversation. Well done. Let me help remind you: I stated that discussion of discouraged and underemployed where going on as far back as the 70's, you called me misinformed and wrong. Turns out I was right.
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Redress said:
And now you are misrepresenting the conversation. Well done. Let me help remind you: I stated that discussion of discouraged and underemployed where going on as far back as the 70's, you called me misinformed and wrong. Turns out I was right.
Click to expand...

I keep forgetting who the hell I am dealing with. I knew there was a reason I stopped responding to you but thought I would give it another try. I have stated many times in this forum and since you follow me so closely you should know that I was talking about the official unemployment rate and not the U-4 thru U-6 numbers and that effective in 1994 the Discouraged workers were removed from the U-3 Number and thus aren't reflected in the official reported numbers which make the official unemployment numbers look better than they really are for all Presidents since Clinton.

I posted the discouraged worker chart from 2002 and most people will notice how high that number was in 2010-2011 well after the recession ended and the stimulus was implemented. The discouraged workers plus the unemployment numbers for both Bush and Obama paint a different story than you and others want the public to believe. You will see that Obama's numbers are as bad if not worse than the numbers Bush is being blamed for.
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Zyphlin said:
Hopefully they do better than the pathetic attempt at night 1...otherwise may as well rely on the other fact checkers for this convention
Click to expand...

For a party that pretends to be the champions of WOMEN to have a known serial sexual harasser speaking to them is hilarious
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Conservative said:
I keep forgetting who the hell I am dealing with. I knew there was a reason I stopped responding to you but thought I would give it another try. I have stated many times in this forum and since you follow me so closely you should know that I was talking about the official unemployment rate and not the U-4 thru U-6 numbers and that effective in 1994 the Discouraged workers were removed from the U-3 Number and thus aren't reflected in the official reported numbers which make the official unemployment numbers look better than they really are for all Presidents since Clinton.

I posted the discouraged worker chart from 2002 and most people will notice how high that number was in 2010-2011 well after the recession ended and the stimulus was implemented. The discouraged workers plus the unemployment numbers for both Bush and Obama paint a different story than you and others want the public to believe. You will see that Obama's numbers are as bad if not worse than the numbers Bush is being blamed for.
Click to expand...

That is not what you said though. You claimed no one was talking about them before now. Turns out you where, as usual, wrong.
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Redress said:
That is not what you said though. You claimed no one was talking about them before now. Turns out you where, as usual, wrong.
Click to expand...

Let me be perfectly clear now then, the official unemployment numbers do not include discouraged workers nor do the Bush official numbers and when you add the unemployment numbers plus the discouraged workers to get the U-4 numbers you aren't going to find much difference at all between Bush and Obama's numbers and you will find that the unemployment plus discouraged workers in 2010-2011 were worse under Obama and here is the proof

Unemployment Number U-3

2008 7678 7491 7816 7631 8395 8578 8950 9450 9501 10083 10544 11299
2009 12049 12860 13389 13796 14505 14727 14646 14861 15012 15421 15227 15124
2010 14953 15039 15128 15221 14876 14517 14609 14735 14574 14636 15104 14393
2011 13919 13751 13628 13792 13892 14024 13908 13920 13897 13759 13323 13097
2012 12758 12806 12673 12500 12720 12749 12794

Discouraged workers
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 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852

Unemployed + Discouraged
2008 8145 7887 8217 8043 8795 8998 9411 9831 9968 10567 11152 11941
2009 12783 13591 14074 14536 15297 15520 15442 15619 15718 16229 16088 16053
2010 16018 16243 16122 16418 15959 15724 15794 15845 15783 15855 16386 15711
2011 14912 14771 14549 14781 14714 15006 15027 14897 14934 14726 14419 14042
Click to expand...

Bush's last month in office, January 2009 the total was 12.783 million unemployed plus discouraged workers and today that number is 14.0 million

Stimulus passed in February 2009 and the recession ended in June 2009 so notice the 2010 numbers which of course are Bush's fault too, aren't they, 16.386 million unemployed/discouraged workers in November 2010
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Is this the DNC that's going on?

All I have been hearing is "Republicans" this, and "Republicans" that. "Romney" this and "Romney" that.

Then again...it's not really like Obama has a positive record or anything.
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Velvet Elvis said:
Is this the DNC that's going on?

All I have been hearing is "Republicans" this, and "Republicans" that. "Romney" this and "Romney" that.

Then again...it's not really like Obama has a positive record or anything.
Click to expand...

On one hand, there was a lot of that at the RNC the other way around.

On the other hand, we had numerous liberals here bitching about how people at the RNC weren't talking about Romney but about Obama nad others
 
Re: Michelle brings down the house!

Zyphlin said:
On one hand, there was a lot of that at the RNC the other way around.

On the other hand, we had numerous liberals here bitching about how people at the RNC weren't talking about Romney but about Obama nad others
Click to expand...
No. It wasn't this bad. They've done nothing but talk about Republicans for the past hour.

Then there were those blowhard sycophants (allegedly) from Bain Capital with their "dey tuk err jorbs!!" speeches.

Two days in, and I STILL haven't heard a democrat plan.
 
Peter King said:
The Huffington Post also reports that some women are denied insurance because of other conditions resulting from sexual assault, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or sexually-transmitted diseases. At least one woman, Kimberly Fallon of Ithaca, NY, was denied coverage for treatment after an assault “because she had been raped before;” Fallon is now unable to get coverage even for ordinary gynecological exams

Women denied health insurance for 'pre-existing conditions' of pregnancy, rape - San Francisco Sonoma County Civil Rights | Examiner.com

Insurance companies can reject applicants for health coverage for a variety of reasons that are particularly relevant to women. For example, it is still legal in nine states and D.C. for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence. Insurers can also reject women for coverage simply for having previously had a Cesarean section (C-section).

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/NWLCReport-NowhereToTurn-81309w.pdf
Click to expand...


Don't know how much you know about the fees for a womans pelvic exam, but you can believe no doctor charges nearly as much as the insurance agents charge. How often do they get a pelvic exam? Insurance you pay for every month.
Insurance is part of the problem.
 
Sandra Fluke just said "personal freedom." From what? Being forced to pay for your own rubbers?
 
Oh, the irony...

Sandra Fluck, infamous for demanding that the taxpayers protect her from the consequences of her sexual appetites, as the opening act for --- wait for it --- Bill Clinton!!

Irony, thy name is D&C Convention... :roll:

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Diogenes said:
Oh, the irony...

Sandra Fluck, infamous for demanding that the taxpayers protect her from the consequences of her sexual appetites, as the opening act for --- wait for it --- Bill Clinton!!

Irony, thy name is D&C Convention... :roll:

:lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

maybe those two Georgetown alums can make a sequel to Crouching Intern, hidden cigar.

She's cuter than Monica and he apparently has lost some weight since his Blue dress staining days
 
With as much she says she spends on birth control, in a year's time, I'm surprised she got through that speech without getting knocked up.
 
Diogenes said:
Oh, the irony...

Sandra Fluck, infamous for demanding that the taxpayers protect her from the consequences of her sexual appetites, as the opening act for --- wait for it --- Bill Clinton!!

Irony, thy name is D&C Convention... :roll:

:lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

You do realize that insurance is not the same thing as taxpayer funded, right?
 
Redress said:
You do realize that insurance is not the same thing as taxpayer funded, right?
Click to expand...

Not under ObamaCare. Mandated coverage of anything drastically raises the cost of that coverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom