More economic good news: Unemployment rate drops

[nodoginnafight]

Sorry I missed that in my much to rapid scan of the postings. However, to get a complete picture of the state of the economy one must take into account all relavent data. If the numbers I quoted were much lower (or higher) during the previous count then this data is indeed relevent for it shows a much more complete picture. If these numbers are essentially unchanged then your argument is indeed valid.

My argument is valid no matter if the data is unchanged or not.

If you want to compare data - you have to include the same criteria on BOTH sides of the equation - period. Whether the results show relatively little change or not means absolutely nothing.

 

[skookerasbil]

we need a flat tax.........until then, any GDP growth is going to come with flat unemployment reductions for a long.......long time.
Just the way it is s0ns...........

 

[nodoginnafight]

In order for us to have a complete understanding of what is happening all available data should be taken into account, not just the data that we like or want to use for what ever reason we want to use it for.

EXACTLY - that is why trying to interject NEW criteria NOW is dishonest. If you want an accurate comparison - you have to compare the same data - period.

If you are determined to include "all relevant data" then why didn't you? Why did you pick and choose a tidbit of data that is not a part of the comparative equation? How did you select THAT tidbit of data? Did you include "ALL" applicable data or just an extraneous piece of data that suits YOUR needs?

 

[Meister]

Can anyone send me to a link that would tell me just how many jobs have been created under the current administration? just askin....

 

[Ringel05]

My argument is valid no matter if the data is unchanged or not.

If you want to compare data - you have include the same criteria on BOTH sides of the equation - period. Whether the results show relatively little change or not means absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately, totally incorrect, I did include the same criteria on BOTH sides. Both sets of data have an impact on each other when compaired to the whole. Apples to apples + grapes to grapes + oranges to oranges = complete statistical data.
By using your argument, we are looking at a forest of dead chestnut trees but seeing the only healthy oak grove in the middle of it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Unfortunately, totally incorrect, I did include the same criteria on BOTH sides. Both sets of data have an impact on each other when compaired to the whole. Apples to apples + grapes to grapes + oranges to oranges = complete statistical data.
By using your argument, we are looking at a forest of dead chestnut trees but seeing the only healthy oak grove in the middle of it.

In spite of all your vegatative verbosity - you have said absolutely nothing.

If it is your intent to argue that comparing x,y,z to w,x,y,z creates a valid comparison - you go right ahead and believe that. Just don't blame the rest of us for pointing out where you are wrong.

If it is your intent to claim "ALL applicable data" must be included to paint the WHOLE picture, then by all means - provide ALL the applicable data - not just the data that you believe supports your political position.

But these are two seperate endeavors. To compare - you compare the SAME data without adding anything to one side and not the other. To "get the whole picture" - you include every piece of available data. You did neither - what you attempted was a hybrid that didn't produce an accurate comparison or the "whole" picture."

 

[Ringel05]

EXACTLY - that is why trying to interject NEW criteria NOW is dishonest. If you want an accurate comparison - you have to compare the same data - period.

If you are determined to include "all relevant data" then why didn't you? Why did you pick and choose a tidbit of data that is not a part of the comparative equation? How did you select THAT tidbit of data? Did you include "ALL" applicable data or just an extraneous piece of data that suits YOUR needs?

That was not my intent only your inferance. Why are you being so defensive and attacking as opposed to discussing? Is it because you don't like the numbers? I don't know, tell me so I don't have to guess. Because if I guess I would say you are allowing you own personal, political paradigm to cloud you reasoning because you don't like what I have injected into the discussion. Am I wrong?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm sorry if my pointing out your mistakes has offended you.
but regardless of what your intent was - what you actually wrote was erroneous in exactly the way I described.

 

[Ringel05]

In spite of all your vegatative verbosity - you have said absolutely nothing.

If it is your intent to argue that comparing x,y,z to w,x,y,z creates a valid comparison - you go right ahead and believe that. Just don't blame the rest of us for pointing out where you are wrong.

If it is your intent to claim "ALL applicable data" must be included to paint the WHOLE picture, then by all means - provide ALL the applicable data - not just the data that you believe supports your political position.

But these are two seperate endeavors. To compare - you compare the SAME data without adding anything to one side and not the other. To "get the whole picture" - you include every piece of available data. You did neither - what you attempted was a hybrid that didn't

It now has become obvious that carrying on rational, civilized discourse with you on this matter is impossible. Your response is to attack and accuse, not discuss, typical of any extremist, whether from the right or left.

Those partisan blinders you wear appear to have become a permanent appendage.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It now has become obvious that carrying on rational, civilized discourse with you on this matter is impossible. Your response is to attack and accuse, not discuss, typical of any extremist, whether from the right or left. Those partisan blinders you wear appear to have become a permanent appendage.

Yes, yes, I'm sure it is the partisan blinders of this former Republican - now independent - that are causing you to lose the argument - NOT the fact that you were simply wrong and now try to accuse me of being mean because I pointed it out.

 

[Ringel05]

nodoginnafight

You completely misconstrued what I was saying and instead of trying to understand my point you simply read in what you wanted to read in, accused and attacked. (The tactic used primarily by extremist right and left wingers - what was I supposed to think). Now all you can say is: I'm right and your wrong? Sounds rather petulant, sorta like nanny, nany, boo, boo. Why bother, you're not worth it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is an interesting phenomena - watching people try so hard to spin even the slightest sliver of a silver lining into a black cloud. Why motivates people to do this? Hyper-partisanship is a cruel master ......

 

[nodoginnafight]

You completely misconstrued what I was saying and instead of trying to understand my point you simply read in what you wanted to read in,

No, I took exactly what you said and pointed out the errors. If you are THIS thin skinned about people disagreeing with you, why do you come to these threads?

 

[PI2]

Those numbers in the story just dont add up without either someone fudging them or the overall population of the USA decreasing.

That should be enough to help you comprehend my point. Math is non-partisan dude

300 million is the overall population not those of age to be in the work force.

 

[Ringel05]

No, I took exactly what you said and pointed out the errors. If you are THIS thin skinned about people disagreeing with you, why do you come to these threads?

Not thin skinned at all, you just have a "interesting" manner of pointing out "percieved" errors. I have no problem with being dissagreed with, I just won't have a discussion with anyone who is not willing to have a civilized discussion in return, it's a waste of time. I agree that I was probably less then clear in my posting but that doesn't make my point any less valid or wrong when it is not missconstrued or missaplied by the reader.
That said, I can only hope you understand my argument, because it seems any further discourse with you on this matter is obviously fruitless, you have closed you mind.
But please, feel free to get in your final "jab", it won't puncture anything.

 

[ozzmdj]

If you don't know that people that have run OUT of unemployment benefits are NOT counted then you have allot to learn about the real state of the US economy.

 

[PI2]

Missourian - what was that bizarre private message you sent me all about? Are you on meds or something?

Watch opening anything that comes from someone in here nodog.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Typical political smoke and mirrors. The economy is not getting better. The government is saying what it is, in hopes that people will spend more money etc.

 

[Toro]

The economy is beginning to stabilize.

 

[PI2]

Typical political smoke and mirrors. The economy is not getting better. The government is saying what it is, in hopes that people will spend more money etc.

Ford posted a nice profit, housing showed gains three months in a row, unemployment is down.

Now if we can get a bill passed to regulate the futures market we could really get this recovery kicked in the butt.