Our side isn't afraid to be honest that we're probably staring defeat in the face.
Krauthammer just blamed Obama for the space disaster today. This is today's GOP unfiltered.
After continued economic growth through the new year, we'll be seeing a whole lot of buyer's remorse with Boehner/McConnell running this expansion into an austere halt .
Damn I gotta wait till Thanksgiving night to get a new laptop at our local Wally--the kid manager knows his stuff--well, after their 103-day vacation save seven, GOP toes will be to the fire--the only civil war better than the GOP one may be the DEM one brewing to throw Reid out--I want my guy Durbin -Conservatives have railed on and on, incessantly, for years, that private industry can do everything better than the government. So, it of course stands to reason that when a privately-contracted space mission blows up, that conservatives should blame ... the government, or more specifically, the president. Right?
Right?
Is this thing on?
I sure have a hard time trying to find a label "Made in America." I actually cried when Levi Jeans threw in the towel. They came up with the concept of "jeans" during the California gold rush days, and Levi saw that they would sell. They invented the word jeans, and they were an honest American icon. Now they're gone, like so many other industries that used to employ our workers. Sad....
Ironically, there are many men's clothiers whose apparel is still made in the USA, from t-shirts to jackets to other items. Woolrich has been in business since 1830 - they made blankets during the Civil War - and they still make the best outdoor shirts and jackets for men that I have ever seen. They're woolen, they're soft, they look good, and they are very well made. They're a bit pricey, but they last forever. That what I've always bought as gifts for the male members of my family, and they LOVE them! I'm doing my part for our economy. :mrgreen:
Much as I did not understand the GOP's strategy in 2012, I do not understand the Democratic strategy now. Why they are not pounding the successes of the last 6 years (growing economy, more jobs, lower deficits, advancement of civil rights, etc.) is beyond me. It's like they are so terrified to run on their own record of successes.
They deserve to lose this election based on terrible campaigning.
Much as I did not understand the GOP's strategy in 2012, I do not understand the Democratic strategy now. Why they are not pounding the successes of the last 6 years (growing economy, more jobs, lower deficits, advancement of civil rights, etc.) is beyond me. It's like they are so terrified to run on their own record of successes.
They deserve to lose this election based on terrible campaigning.
Our side isn't afraid to be honest that we're probably staring defeat in the face.
The definition would include those that want a job but can't find one and have exhausted UE benefits so they are NOT counted. That would make the TRUE number quite a bit higher and you know it.You realize that all the data is available...so the "true numbers" are out there.
But I'm still puzzled by insistence on "the true numbers." What makes them that? What's the definition, and why?
But that's not true...The U-3 is what is commonly used to report figures to the people, and that uses data of monthly benefit claims. There are more out there that want to work but have exhausted their benefits.Here's what I don't get....Not working, available for work, currently looking for work, is the basic definition used in the U.S. since 1920 when the Census first started asking about unemployment, it's the standard of Eurostat, the International Labour Organization (of the U.N.) and every country in the world that collects unemployment data. there are variations, of course...some countries have a maximum age, some include military in the population, some don't, some include people hired but not working as unemployed regardless of job search, some have relaxed standards for looking (those more Socialist countries where the government finds a job for you).
And yet...there are people who insist that that's not a "real" definition. I find it odd to declare every expert in the field wrong.
j-Mac...it's like civilians calling the M-16A2 or the M-4 an automatic weapon or machine gun. To them, "automatic" and "semi-automatic" are the same thing.
For J
You're going to use lottery winners in your example? Really? What is that, like 1/1,000,000 of the population?Still trying to figure out your definition, so let's try:
A 16 year old looking for a part time job.
Someone fired for cause and hasn't tried to find a new job.
Someone who quits and starts looking for a new job.
Someone who got laid off and decided they didn't need a job and would stay home with the kids.
A multi-million dollar lottery winner who stops looking for work.
Someone who stops looking for work due to pregnancy.
Someone who stops looking for work because he's just enrolled in a trade school.
A retiree who decides to look for a part time job.
Is it really as simple as you thought? Are your divisions clear, do they make sense, and do they give you the info you want?
Yeah, it's all just mean old Fox...Couldn't be failed policy nooooo.The relentless bashing of anything-Obama and anything-Democratic for the last 6 years by FOX, especially the last 2, is clearly the deciding factor in this mid-term. We'll see if there is still an Ebola scare next Wed. Or if Dems can salvage a few governor gains .
The definition would include those that want a job but can't find one and have exhausted UE benefits so they are NOT counted. That would make the TRUE number quite a bit higher and you know it.
The unemployment rate (U3) has NEVER EVER been based on UI benefits.But that's not true...The U-3 is what is commonly used to report figures to the people, and that uses data of monthly benefit claims. There are more out there that want to work but have exhausted their benefits.
The definition would include those that want a job but can't find one and have exhausted UE benefits so they are NOT counted. That would make the TRUE number quite a bit higher and you know it.
So? The definition, to mean anything, has to be specific, exclusive, and cover everything. Actual lottery winner is irrelevant...the point is how do you classify someone not working who does not want a job?You're going to use lottery winners in your example? Really? What is that, like 1/1,000,000 of the population?
Apparently you have a short memory.
Compared to your pulling numbers out of your ass? Of course.
What more reliable method would you propose?
For the UE rate, at 90% confidence, the margin of error is +/- 0.2 percentage points (meaning the "real" number is somewhere between 5.7 and 6.1%
Compare to Gallup's estimate with a margin of error of +/- 0.7 percentage points.
But in any case, I note you're skipping over that you just made up where the data came from and decided to pass it off as fact without trying to see if you were right. Do you really consider that honest?
what is their definition of Unemployed and where did they get their numbers from? And why do you think they are more accurate except that they match what you want the numbers to be?
Krauthammer just blamed Obama for the space disaster today. This is today's GOP unfiltered.
After continued economic growth through the new year, we'll be seeing a whole lot of buyer's remorse with Boehner/McConnell running this expansion into an austere halt .
It is almost like the Democrats let Fox News run their campaigns for them. Conservative media claims 2014 is a referendum on Obama, and the Democratic candidates run right out there and campaign as if it actually is.
You really get offended when people show how inaccurate and corrupt the Government and Obama are
Read the link I think they use BLS stats
When has someone done that? Not you.
I've read the link, and they only sort of kind of use BLS stats....but in any case, aren't you claiming BLS data is inaccurate????
I really don't get why you think the blog is more accurate or reliable than BLS data when you don't understand the methodology of either.
Depends what part you use. Obama and the government use deceptive figures
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?