Here's the Change promised... - Page 3

PaulC · #31 02-08-2012, 08:41 AM

There ya go - all cleared up now...

Air&Road · #32 02-08-2012, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

Your logic is flawed, as you are aware. If people in this category were not counted as unemployed five years ago, but suddenly are today, the value of using historical data for comparative purposes becomes compromised. I have no doubt that, if people in this category were counted as unemployed five years ago, and this category was dropped as part of the employment count during the Obama administration, you and other Tea Partiers would scream that Obama was attempting to cook the stats for the benefit of his administration.

The flaw in YOUR logic is that due to a better economy in years passed, the number of people that gave up looking for work was virtually nil.

cmbdiesel · #33 02-08-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

The flaw in YOUR logic is that due to a better economy in years passed, the number of people that gave up looking for work was virtually nil.

Are you referring to the Clinton boom years??

Kuan · #34 02-08-2012, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Guest Post: Illusion Of Recovery - Feelings Versus Facts | ZeroHedge

That's the real unemployment rate.

The BLS breaks it down. You can actually get a good look at what's going on.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat35.txt

In 2010 there were 83,941,000 unemployed, but 77,882,000 simply "did not want a job now" for whatever reason. These would be people like me.

It's interesting that in my small sample, 4 out of seven families are perfectly content with one income. That beats the stats.

PaulC · #35 02-08-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

The flaw in YOUR logic is that due to a better economy in years passed, the number of people that gave up looking for work was virtually nil.

Would you count 2008 as one of those years that has passed? Is that year representative of the better economy that you are referring to?

PaulC · #36 02-08-2012, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Are you referring to the Clinton boom years??

Now you've done it - he's going to sputter and fluster and tell us how the economy thrived despite Clinton...

elchivito · #37 02-08-2012, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

Now you've done it - he's going to sputter and fluster and tell us how the economy thrived despite Clinton...

I'm sure the Onion can provide supportive evidence.

PaulC · #38 02-08-2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

I'm sure the Onion can provide supportive evidence.

It's the Wall Street Journal for trolls...

MTI · #39 02-08-2012, 12:46 PM

Yes, anyone can fault the president for not adhering to principle or to lead by example.

JollyRoger · #40 02-08-2012, 12:54 PM

I can't fault him for not wanting to tie one hand behind his back. I'm in favor of gun control, yet I carry a gun when the need arises. Why? In the absence of gun control, I want to even up the odds. Obama is in the same position.

In the end, this issue moves no votes either way, it's just more AM radio drivel.