Why do so many here want the Obama boat to sink???

[pinqy]

Wow ... you do realize a "survey" is a projection, it's not accurate, they still have to guess at the actual amounts. The only number that is accurately counted is how many are collecting unemployment. Not everyone can take the time off from searching for a new job to fill out a survey, and they don't even know to contact all those people in the first place.

No, a survey is not a projection. A projection is "a calculation of some future thing." A future prediction. The Current Population Survey is not a projection...it doesn't predict anything, but is based on the past. The reference week is the week of the month that contains the 12th. Immediately after that week, people in the survey are contacted. No projections are made. Individuals are in for 4 months, out for 8 months, and back in for 4 months. The response rate is around 95%. This isn't some random mail survey...people are contacted in a face to face interview at first, and then contacted and recontacted each month until they respond or it's too late to collect. The survey size is 60,000 households a month...enough to work, though the margin of error can be large.

The number of poeple collecting unemployment is accurately counted, but a rate is a percentage....what would you make it a percentage of? What is used is the Labor Force, which comes from the CPS. So you couldn't have an accurate rate anyway.

What you are not accounting for is that Unemployed includes not just people who lost their jobs, but people who quit, people who finished temp jobs, people just entering the labor force, and those re-entering the labor force. The only way to capture all those is through a survey, benchmarked against the decennial census.

But you're avoiding backing up your claims. You claimed that Obama was " only looking at the number of people collecting unemployment," but you haven't shown that. And now you're saying that that number is more accurate anyway? So why are you complaining that he's looking at the more accurate number (which is not true anyway, he quotes the official number: currently 9.4%)

You're playing the classic game of misdirection....when caught in your untruths, you try to shift the argument.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wow ... you do realize a "survey" is a projection, it's not accurate, they still have to guess at the actual amounts. The only number that is accurately counted is how many are collecting unemployment. Not everyone can take the time off from searching for a new job to fill out a survey, and they don't even know to contact all those people in the first place.

No, a survey is not a projection. A projection is "a calculation of some future thing." A future prediction. The Current Population Survey is not a projection...it doesn't predict anything, but is based on the past. The reference week is the week of the month that contains the 12th. Immediately after that week, people in the survey are contacted. No projections are made. Individuals are in for 4 months, out for 8 months, and back in for 4 months. The response rate is around 95%. This isn't some random mail survey...people are contacted in a face to face interview at first, and then contacted and recontacted each month until they respond or it's too late to collect. The survey size is 60,000 households a month...enough to work, though the margin of error can be large.

The number of poeple collecting unemployment is accurately counted, but a rate is a percentage....what would you make it a percentage of? What is used is the Labor Force, which comes from the CPS. So you couldn't have an accurate rate anyway.

What you are not accounting for is that Unemployed includes not just people who lost their jobs, but people who quit, people who finished temp jobs, people just entering the labor force, and those re-entering the labor force. The only way to capture all those is through a survey, benchmarked against the decennial census.

But you're avoiding backing up your claims. You claimed that Obama was " only looking at the number of people collecting unemployment," but you haven't shown that. And now you're saying that that number is more accurate anyway? So why are you complaining that he's looking at the more accurate number (which is not true anyway, he quotes the official number: currently 9.4%)

You're playing the classic game of misdirection....when caught in your untruths, you try to shift the argument.

No, I am pointing out flaws in your idea of what reality is. The surveys are the basis for the projections only, they are not accurate, and no matter how you twist it, they will never be. I have never filled one out, even when not working, and have never collected unemployment checks, so that's two of us I know for certain in this thread that have never been counted. Using poll mathematics, that means about 2,000 people have never been counted.

 

[pinqy]

No, I am pointing out flaws in your idea of what reality is. The surveys are the basis for the projections only, they are not accurate, and no matter how you twist it, they will never be.

BLS doesn't make any projections on unemployment. So which projections are you talking about? The CPS is the basis of the Official Unemployment rate. Is it accurate? At 90% confidence the margin of error is about +- 2% for unemployment.

I have never filled one out, even when not working, and have never collected unemployment checks, so that's two of us I know for certain in this thread that have never been counted. Using poll mathematics, that means about 2,000 people have never been counted.

You don't understand how a survey works, do you? The 60,000 households represent the entire country. You don't have to count individuals for accuracy. You're still "counted" in that you are represented by other people in similar circumstances.

 

[ABikerSailor]

[/IMG]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mr.Fitnah again.

LMFAO

Not a problem ba1614, I repped him positive when I saw it.

Too bad the Constitution didn't have a "no Bush Jr. policy".

It would have saved a lot of heartache.

 

[Meister]

The problem with unemployment is that Obama and his administration are only looking at the number of people collecting unemployment, the rate is much higher than reported if you include all those who's unemployment benefits ran out already.

You look really silly when you make completely untrue statements like that. I suggest you do your research first so you don't look completely stupid. I can provide links if you'd like. But the current administration doesn't calculate the unemployment rate any differently, and whether or not someone is eligible for unemployment has NEVER been a part of the UE rate.
Do the research, like you should have in the first place.

Maybe you should look at job losses the last 8 months...I could supply links for you, but I think you should do your own research. You really are coming off looking silly, Pigy

 

[pinqy]

The problem with unemployment is that Obama and his administration are only looking at the number of people collecting unemployment, the rate is much higher than reported if you include all those who's unemployment benefits ran out already.

You look really silly when you make completely untrue statements like that. I suggest you do your research first so you don't look completely stupid. I can provide links if you'd like. But the current administration doesn't calculate the unemployment rate any differently, and whether or not someone is eligible for unemployment has NEVER been a part of the UE rate.
Do the research, like you should have in the first place.

Maybe you should look at job losses the last 8 months...I could supply links for you, but I think you should do your own research. You really are coming off looking silly, Pigy

I'm familiar with the job losses...which come from the Current Employment Statistics Survey (seperate from the Current Population Survey which does the Unemployment Rate). Though there is also the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, but that's a month behind the CES. What do you think I'm missing? I'm pointing out that the current administration does not count unemployment any differently than previous administrations and that eligibility or receipt of Unemployment Insurance Benefits has never been part of the Unemployment rate. Your comment on job losses is a bit of a non sequitur. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Maple]

I am not a republican or a democrat.

Here is what I don't understand.

The past administration drove this country into the ground.

I am not a big Obama fan, but shouldn't we at least give the guy a chance?

Why are soo many people here hoping and praying that he fails?

We are all in the same sinking boat.

Shouldn't we all be cheering for him to turn the country around and get us out of this mess ?

One thing that I am very disappointed in, is the fact that if you criticize this President for his policies that you do not agree with, you are termed a racist. I thought this race issue would end with his election. That has not happened, it has increased. One thing I will tell you, is that the next time a black person runs for president, no matter what their party or policies are, I will think twice about voting for them.

I am an free American who has the right to be critical of policies that I think are wrong for this country without being labeled a racist for doing so. I could give a rat's ass if the person is purple, it's the policy that counts, but the more I am called a racist for critizing this President, the less inclined I am to vote for a black person in the future. You liberals and blacks who do this only hurt your cause, because I am down right convinced that many others feel the same way as I do.

If you are going to be President of the United States you had better be up to taking the criticizm that you are gonna get from all sides. I don't give a damn what color you are.

 

[rightwinger]

One thing that I am very disappointed in, is the fact that if you criticize this President for his policies that you do not agree with, you are termed a racist. I thought this race issue would end with his election. That has not happened, it has increased. One thing I will tell you, is that the next time a black person runs for president, no matter what their party or policies are, I will think twice about voting for them.

Now that sounds racist....not voting for him because he is black

By the way, when Bush was president, anyone who criticized him was called Un- American
Didn't that outrage you?

 

[ABikerSailor]

One thing that I am very disappointed in, is the fact that if you criticize this President for his policies that you do not agree with, you are termed a racist. I thought this race issue would end with his election. That has not happened, it has increased. One thing I will tell you, is that the next time a black person runs for president, no matter what their party or policies are, I will think twice about voting for them.

Now that sounds racist....not voting for him because he is black

By the way, when Bush was president, anyone who criticized him was called Un- American
Didn't that outrage you?

When you're a person who shows up at a GOP candidate's rally with a t-shirt protesting them, they are told they can't come in, and are pointed at as being un-American.

When you're a person who shows up at a Dem candidate's rally with a loaded assault rifle, you're told that you're just defending your rights.

When you show up at a GOP congress critter's rally and tell them that you are a proud political terrorist (especially in light of events since 2001), you are told by the congress critter that you are a great American.

What the fuck?

 

[Intense]

One thing that I am very disappointed in, is the fact that if you criticize this President for his policies that you do not agree with, you are termed a racist. I thought this race issue would end with his election. That has not happened, it has increased. One thing I will tell you, is that the next time a black person runs for president, no matter what their party or policies are, I will think twice about voting for them.

Now that sounds racist....not voting for him because he is black

By the way, when Bush was president, anyone who criticized him was called Un- American
Didn't that outrage you?

When you're a person who shows up at a GOP candidate's rally with a t-shirt protesting them, they are told they can't come in, and are pointed at as being un-American.

When you're a person who shows up at a Dem candidate's rally with a loaded assault rifle, you're told that you're just defending your rights.

When you show up at a GOP congress critter's rally and tell them that you are a proud political terrorist (especially in light of events since 2001), you are told by the congress critter that you are a great American.

What the fuck?

You are really pushing buttons ... Here is a tribute to the AFT.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw]YouTube - Pink Floyd - Another Brick in the Wall[/ame]