Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
YOU dishonestly edited out the date for the first quote which was immediately after the election in November, and the October quote was to show exactly who your America-hating MessiahRushie means by "all your Joe the Plumbers," an "average citizen."The context was PURE SPITE because the election didn't go the way he wanted. THERE, take that!Link and in context to what he said.
Parsing The Messiah's Speech - The Rush Limbaugh Show
November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.
October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen
October? November?
Which is it?
Could it be Rush saw what was coming and he was correct?
All YOU have done is point to the fact that he was in context.
YOU dishonestly edited out the date for the first quote which was immediately after the election in November, and the October quote was to show exactly who your America-hating MessiahRushie means by "all your Joe the Plumbers," an "average citizen."The context was PURE SPITE because the election didn't go the way he wanted. THERE, take that!
Parsing The Messiah's Speech - The Rush Limbaugh Show
November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.
October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen
October? November?
Which is it?
Could it be Rush saw what was coming and he was correct?
All YOU have done is point to the fact that he was in context.
Your MessiahRushie SPITEFULLY hopes ALL average American citizens SUFFER because the election didn't go his way!!!
Graph one, even with it's dishonest start point does not show what you claim. The labor force has been declining well before your chart starts, but even where it starts you can see UE rising while the LF falls. The LF is falling because Boomers are retiring and it will continue to fall for the next 20 years because retirees are leaving the work force faster than new workers are entering the labor force.UE rate is computed by dividing the number of unemployed people actively looking for work by the total labor force. The government removes people who have given up looking or started receiving welfare benefits from the total labor force.
Graph one shows how UE rate goes down as total labor force goes down.
No, you asked households and I gave you households and gave an approximation of the # of individuals. The definition of household is all the people living together as a unit.60,000 a month compared to over 300 million?
No, 60,000 households (around 110,000 individuals) to represent around 250,000,000 people. Children under16, the military, people in prison or other institutions aren't covered.
Sample size is fine.
I asked you households now you're expanding it?
Why on earth not? What possible negative effect do you think that could have?You will not get an accurate number if you do more than one person per household..
No, the Nov date was still in the post YOU just linked to.YOU dishonestly edited out the date for the first quote which was immediately after the election in November, and the October quote was to show exactly who your America-hating MessiahRushie means by "all your Joe the Plumbers," an "average citizen."October? November?
Which is it?
Could it be Rush saw what was coming and he was correct?
All YOU have done is point to the fact that he was in context.
Your MessiahRushie SPITEFULLY hopes ALL average American citizens SUFFER because the election didn't go his way!!!
NO I posted what YOU wrote asshole.
Did FULL AUTO edit your post as well?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5275449-post47.html
Fucking DOLT.
No, the Nov date was still in the post YOU just linked to.YOU dishonestly edited out the date for the first quote which was immediately after the election in November, and the October quote was to show exactly who your America-hating MessiahRushie means by "all your Joe the Plumbers," an "average citizen."
Your MessiahRushie SPITEFULLY hopes ALL average American citizens SUFFER because the election didn't go his way!!!
NO I posted what YOU wrote asshole.
Did FULL AUTO edit your post as well?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5275449-post47.html
Fucking DOLT.
Fucking LIAR.
You are full of SHIT! I altered nothing!No, the Nov date was still in the post YOU just linked to.NO I posted what YOU wrote asshole.
Did FULL AUTO edit your post as well?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5275449-post47.html
Fucking DOLT.
Fucking LIAR.
Son? You got CAUGHT in a LIE despite the date. Altering another's POST is a bannable offense. YOU altered your own post when faced with the faux pas.
IDIOT.
No, you asked households and I gave you households and gave an approximation of the # of individuals. The definition of household is all the people living together as a unit.No, 60,000 households (around 110,000 individuals) to represent around 250,000,000 people. Children under16, the military, people in prison or other institutions aren't covered.
Sample size is fine.
I asked you households now you're expanding it?
Why on earth not? What possible negative effect do you think that could have?You will not get an accurate number if you do more than one person per household..
I didn't "expand" anything. Household, BY DEFINITION, means everyone in the household. I have. O idea what you think I was trying to do that I "failed."No, you asked households and I gave you households and gave an approximation of the # of individuals. The definition of household is all the people living together as a unit.I asked you households now you're expanding it?
Why on earth not? What possible negative effect do you think that could have?You will not get an accurate number if you do more than one person per household..
What you did was expand what I asked for and you failed.
it's plenty.60,000 households is not that much.
Why not? Oh, and only one person in the household answers the questions, but they answer for every infividual in the household.and if you ask more than one person per house you are not going to get a correct number.
Conveniently edited out the second graph, huh?Graph one, even with it's dishonest start point does not show what you claim. The labor force has been declining well before your chart starts, but even where it starts you can see UE rising while the LF falls. The LF is falling because Boomers are retiring and it will continue to fall for the next 20 years because retirees are leaving the work force faster than new workers are entering the labor force.UE rate is computed by dividing the number of unemployed people actively looking for work by the total labor force. The government removes people who have given up looking or started receiving welfare benefits from the total labor force.
Graph one shows how UE rate goes down as total labor force goes down.
It's what he and other dishonest asses as him do.Conveniently edited out the second graph, huh?Graph one, even with it's dishonest start point does not show what you claim. The labor force has been declining well before your chart starts, but even where it starts you can see UE rising while the LF falls. The LF is falling because Boomers are retiring and it will continue to fall for the next 20 years because retirees are leaving the work force faster than new workers are entering the labor force.UE rate is computed by dividing the number of unemployed people actively looking for work by the total labor force. The government removes people who have given up looking or started receiving welfare benefits from the total labor force.
Graph one shows how UE rate goes down as total labor force goes down.
I asked you how many household were polled and your answer is?I didn't "expand" anything. Household, BY DEFINITION, means everyone in the household. I have. O idea what you think I was trying to do that I "failed."No, you asked households and I gave you households and gave an approximation of the # of individuals. The definition of household is all the people living together as a unit.
Why on earth not? What possible negative effect do you think that could have?
What you did was expand what I asked for and you failed.
it's plenty.60,000 households is not that much.
Why not? Oh, and only one person in the household answers the questions, but they answer for every infividual in the household.and if you ask more than one person per house you are not going to get a correct number.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat35.pdf
It is common for partisans to call this the count of "discouraged" workers. That is a very misleading label. Many of those who are not counted in the labor force are out of the labor force by choice.
For instance, you can see the largest increase from 2010 to 2011 is those people who do not want a job. They are not discouraged, they do not want a job.
The number of "discouraged over job prospects" actually dropped in the past year.
Go to the source, not to some AM radio bloviator.
I asked you how many household were polled and your answer is?I didn't "expand" anything. Household, BY DEFINITION, means everyone in the household. I have. O idea what you think I was trying to do that I "failed."What you did was expand what I asked for and you failed.
it's plenty.
Why not? Oh, and only one person in the household answers the questions, but they answer for every infividual in the household.and if you ask more than one person per house you are not going to get a correct number.
60000 households out of let's say 150 million is not enough.
I asked you how many household were polled and your answer is?I didn't "expand" anything. Household, BY DEFINITION, means everyone in the household. I have. O idea what you think I was trying to do that I "failed."
it's plenty.
Why not? Oh, and only one person in the household answers the questions, but they answer for every infividual in the household.
60000 households out of let's say 150 million is not enough.
Yes, it is. Why do you think it's not?
And I still have no idea why you think getting data on each individual on a household would be less accurate,
and? The larger the universe, the lower percent necessary. For a universe of 250 million, 110 thousand is accurate enough. At 90% confidence, the error for the UE rate is+/- 0.2 percentage points. In other words, for April, there is 90% chance the actual rate is between 7.9% and 8.3%. That's not accurate enough for you?I asked you how many household were polled and your answer is?
60000 households out of let's say 150 million is not enough.
Yes, it is. Why do you think it's not?
And I still have no idea why you think getting data on each individual on a household would be less accurate,
That's less than 1 percent
Short non technical version Chapter 1, Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population SurveyI don't know anyone that has been polled are they polling the same areas of households or do they poll others and how long between poll do they poll the same area if they mover their polls from area to area.
and? The larger the universe, the lower percent necessary. For a universe of 250 million, 110 thousand is accurate enough. At 90% confidence, the error for the UE rate is+/- 0.2 percentage points. In other words, for April, there is 90% chance the actual rate is between 7.9% and 8.3%. That's not accurate enough for you?Yes, it is. Why do you think it's not?
And I still have no idea why you think getting data on each individual on a household would be less accurate,
That's less than 1 percent
Short non technical version Chapter 1, Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population SurveyI don't know anyone that has been polled are they polling the same areas of households or do they poll others and how long between poll do they poll the same area if they mover their polls from area to area.
Currently the 2010 census is used.
The larger the universe, the lower percent necessary. For a universe of 250 million, 110 thousand is accurate enough
How do you know they're not accurate? Oh it's just what you feel.and? The larger the universe, the lower percent necessary. For a universe of 250 million, 110 thousand is accurate enough. At 90% confidence, the error for the UE rate is+/- 0.2 percentage points. In other words, for April, there is 90% chance the actual rate is between 7.9% and 8.3%. That's not accurate enough for you?That's less than 1 percent
Short non technical version Chapter 1, Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population Survey
Currently the 2010 census is used.
The larger the universe, the lower percent necessary. For a universe of 250 million, 110 thousand is accurate enough
Do you really want to stick with that? The unemployment numbers that are being reported today are not correct, Those numbers are not showing the true numbers of people being unemployed. Let's poll 200 households how about that?
How do you know they're not accurate? Oh it's just what you feel.and? The larger the universe, the lower percent necessary. For a universe of 250 million, 110 thousand is accurate enough. At 90% confidence, the error for the UE rate is+/- 0.2 percentage points. In other words, for April, there is 90% chance the actual rate is between 7.9% and 8.3%. That's not accurate enough for you?
Short non technical version Chapter 1, Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population Survey
Currently the 2010 census is used.
The larger the universe, the lower percent necessary. For a universe of 250 million, 110 thousand is accurate enough
Do you really want to stick with that? The unemployment numbers that are being reported today are not correct, Those numbers are not showing the true numbers of people being unemployed. Let's poll 200 households how about that?
And while 60k households is adequate and it was down to 50k for a while, 50k wasn't quite good enough. Now how large a sole do you think is necessary and how would you pay for it?
60,000 a month compared to over 300 million?Approx 60,000/month, which is perfectly fine for national numbers. Households are in for 4 months, out for 8, back in for 4. So 3/4 of the sample is the same from one month to the next and 1/2 the same got the same month in different years.
No, 60,000 households (around 110,000 individuals) to represent around 250,000,000 people. Children under16, the military, people in prison or other institutions aren't covered.
Sample size is fine.
