TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#8,252
#8,252
BowlBrother85 said:
Here is something else for you to be snide about:

Per an interview on ABC's "This Week" today, Republican Senator Marco Rubio (Florida) said he sees "no evidence" to support President Trump's claims that the FBI used an informant to gather information on his campaign, but that instead the federal probe was focused on "individuals with a history of links to Russia that were concerning."

"As far as what I have seen to date, it appears that there was an investigation not of the campaign, but of certain individuals that have a history that we should be suspicious of, that predate the presidential campaign of 2015 - 2016," Rubio told Martha Raddatz on "This Week." "And when individuals like that are in the orbit of a major political campaign in America, the FBI, who is in charge of counterintelligence investigations, should look at people like that."

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that there was an "FBI" spy in his presidential campaign. Rubio said that he thinks that the president and his lawyers are "reacting ... they're responding to what, what they're facing and the things that are happening to them."

"Spygate" (with apologies to the 2007 Patriots) appears to be yet another pie in the sky delusion by Trump. How much smoke is he going to have to blow before he finally loses credibility with his base? Apparently, the legions of the gullible have short memories and don't recall Trump's March 6, 2017 accusation on Twitter that Barack Obama had "wiretapped" Trump Tower (that too was a bust). How else to explain why they continue to buy into his absurd allegations?
Click to expand...

Rubio 😂
 
#8,257
#8,257
BowlBrother85 said:
Can't let you get away with asking this without mentioning that it was the 2009 stimulus which began the economic recovery.
Click to expand...

Those shovel ready jobs saved us, huh?

Only $831 billion dollars for what exactly?

Was our infrastructure rebuilt? What was accomplished?

Solyndra defaulting on $535 million in loans is just one example.

What good came out of the bailout?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,258
#8,258
BowlBrother85 said:
I will put it in their words:

"Since discouraged workers are not actively searching for a job, they are considered nonparticipants in the labor market - that is, they are neither counted as unemployed or included in the labor force."
Click to expand...

So the unemployment aren’t really unemployed when a Dem is president.

Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,260
#8,260
Carl Pickens said:
Discouraged workers?..... LMAO... is this the liberal tern for dead beat lazy ass good for nothings?
Click to expand...

It's a basic economics term to describe people who have fallen out of the core statistics of the unemployment rate after long-term unemployment and are therefore classified as "discouraged". In some cases, this may derive from a variety of factors including a shortage of jobs in their locality or line of work; a lack of necessary skills, training and experience or chronic illness or disability. It is also possible that a "discouraged worker" has found a source of income in the underground economy substantial enough to sustain their desired lifestyle.

As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered a part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates - which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics.

Although some countries offer alternative measures of the unemployment rate, the primary existence of the category of "discouraged workers" is to account for the likelihood that the employment status of these people could not be altered by a government change of policy or the upswing of the economy. In some cases, these people (including some housewives who may have left the labor force after getting married and having children) do not have a job because they do not need a job. It would skew the statistics to include them as being unemployed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,261
#8,261
BowlBrother85 said:
It's a basic economics term to describe people who have fallen out of the core statistics of the unemployment rate after long-term unemployment and are therefore classified as "discouraged". In some cases, this may derive from a variety of factors including a shortage of jobs in their locality or line of work; a lack of necessary skills, training and experience or chronic illness or disability. It is also possible that a "discouraged worker" has found a source of income in the underground economy substantial enough to sustain their desired lifestyle.

As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered a part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates - which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics.

Although some countries offer alternative measures of the unemployment rate, the primary existence of the category of "discouraged workers" is to account for the likelihood that the employment status of these people could not be altered by a government change of policy or the upswing of the economy. In some cases, these people (including some housewives who may have left the labor force after getting married and having children) do not have a job because they do not need a job. It would skew the statistics to include them as being unemployed.
Click to expand...

So it’s another BS way to manipulate data.

There’s no need for it. If you’re not working you’re unemployed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,262
#8,262
Orangeslice13 said:
So it’s another BS way to manipulate data.

There’s no need for it. If you’re not working you’re unemployed.
Click to expand...

Good lord. It is a way to more accurately track how many people are looking for work but can't find it. Should a housewife with a wealthy husband who voluntarily left her job to start a family be officially counted in the unemployment rate? Including her in the unemployment rate would do nothing to help us understand the state of the economy. She could have a job if she wanted or needed one.
 
#8,263
#8,263
BowlBrother85 said:
Good lord. It is a way to more accurately track how many people are looking for work but can't find it. Should a housewife with a wealthy husband who voluntarily left her job to start a family be officially counted in the unemployment rate? Including her in the unemployment rate would do nothing to help us understand the state of the economy. She could have a job if she wanted or needed one.
Click to expand...

Housewife? Your side has done everything in its power to drive these into extinction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,264
#8,264
BowlBrother85 said:
Good lord. It is a way to more accurately track how many people are looking for work but can't find it. Should a housewife with a wealthy husband who voluntarily left her job to start a family be officially counted in the unemployment rate? Including her in the unemployment rate would do nothing to help us understand the state of the economy. She could have a job if she wanted or needed one.
Click to expand...

You can accurately track unemployment without the spin. The number may be larger but it would be a more accurate number. I understand that isn’t what politicians want though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,265
#8,265
Orangeslice13 said:
You can accurately track unemployment without the spin. The number may be larger but it would be a more accurate number. I understand that isn’t what politicians want though.
Click to expand...

My point exactly. I understand BB is a socialist so he likes D policies. No worries, there.

But how anyone can trust the data from DC is beyond me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,266
#8,266
Orangeslice13 said:
You can accurately track unemployment without the spin. The number may be larger but it would be a more accurate number. I understand that isn’t what politicians want though.
Click to expand...

It's not accurate to characterize it as 'spin' and it has nothing to do with politics. What you're suggesting is not what the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) wants. This is the agency which collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the United States Department of Labor, and conducts research into how much families need to earn to enjoy a decent standard of living.
 
#8,269
#8,269
Orange_Crush said:
This. And it's a pretty recent phenomenon, which skews the numbers when compared to historic numbers.
Click to expand...

Why should historic numbers matter? This isn't baseball. Let's figure out how many people in this country want a job but don't have one and why that might be. Then pinpoint who they might be to better help us understand what the root causes for their inability to find work are and what changes can be made in policy to help them. What good comes from counting someone as unemployed who wouldn't accept a good job if offered to them? That doesn't help evaluate the economy or jobs and wages growth any better. That is the purpose for these stats in the first place.
 
#8,270
#8,270
BowlBrother85 said:
Why should historic numbers matter? This isn't baseball. Let's figure out how many people in this country want a job but don't have one and why that might be. Then pinpoint who they might be to better help us understand what the root causes for their inability to find work are and what changes can be made in policy to help them. What good comes from counting someone as unemployed who wouldn't accept a good job if offered to them? That doesn't help evaluate the economy or jobs and wages growth any better. That is the purpose for these stats in the first place.
Click to expand...

I suspect you would be amazed to see the unemployment numbers from three years ago compared to those of the great depression, both computed by the formula used to give the damn unemployment.

Changing the formula I'd a great way to lie to the American public and Try to convince us that the Fed isn't managing us as poorly add they are.

The average people think comparatively. They don't register what 5% actually means. They register increases and decreases. You can screw with that unnoticed when you change the formula.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,271
#8,271
BowlBrother85 said:
Why should historic numbers matter? This isn't baseball. Let's figure out how many people in this country want a job but don't have one and why that might be. Then pinpoint who they might be to better help us understand what the root causes for their inability to find work are and what changes can be made in policy to help them. What good comes from counting someone as unemployed who wouldn't accept a good job if offered to them? That doesn't help evaluate the economy or jobs and wages growth any better. That is the purpose for these stats in the first place.
Click to expand...

Because the motivation to accept a good job if offered can be tied to government services (or lack thereof)
 
#8,272
#8,272
BowlBrother85 said:
Why should historic numbers matter? This isn't baseball. Let's figure out how many people in this country want a job but don't have one and why that might be. Then pinpoint who they might be to better help us understand what the root causes for their inability to find work are and what changes can be made in policy to help them. What good comes from counting someone as unemployed who wouldn't accept a good job if offered to them? That doesn't help evaluate the economy or jobs and wages growth any better. That is the purpose for these stats in the first place.
Click to expand...

And i don't completely disagree. I would be in favour of creating a different stat, just not monkeying with the actual unemployment formula.
 
#8,273
#8,273
Orange_Crush said:
And i don't completely disagree. I would be in favour of creating a different stat, just not monkeying with the actual unemployment formula.
Click to expand...

I starting hearing about Labor Participation Rate during Obama's term. Idk if that stat is more accurate or was simply useful to counter Obama's UE numbers by the Rs.
 
#8,274
#8,274
McDad said:
I starting hearing about Labor Participation Rate during Obama's term. Idk if that stat is more accurate or was simply useful to counter Obama's UE numbers by the Rs.
Click to expand...

The latter. It is not helpful,and was a way to quietly lie to the American people. find the numbers. Compute them by the old formula. Compare them to the great depression. Then ask yourself why they were doctored.

The labor participation numbers... They don't just subtract those who don't want a job. There ix no motive questionnaire. They blindly subtract anyone who has be an out or the unemployment system for a certain time... those whose unemployment has run out and they still can't find a job. Like all those people who want to work but can't when an economy seizes up.


It's a number that needs to be accounted in the stats that track who isn't working.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top