Fudging The Numbers

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1VL4lk_K4KI&refer=home

OBAMA CLAIMS 3.6 MILLION ARE OUT OF WORK, BUT OVER 5 MILLION COLLECT UNEMPLOYMENT. ADD TO THIS 1.25 million WHO WERE FIRED AND CANT COLLECT BENEFITS, AND THE TOTAL JUMPS TO 6.25 MILLION OUT OF WORK. ALMOST DOUBLE THE NUMBER OBAMA SAYS.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1VL4lk_K4KI&refer=home

OBAMA CLAIMS 3.6 MILLION ARE OUT OF WORK, BUT OVER 5 MILLION COLLECT UNEMPLOYMENT. ADD TO THIS 1.25 million WHO WERE FIRED AND CANT COLLECT BENEFITS, AND THE TOTAL JUMPS TO 6.25 MILLION OUT OF WORK. ALMOST DOUBLE THE NUMBER OBAMA SAYS.

More shading of the truth, JB. This time of the same report you appear to be citing.

Here's what the Bloomberg article says:

President Barack Obama is counting on his $787 billion stimulus to help stop the slide by creating 3.5 million jobs, and on a separate plan to keep Americans struggling with mortgage costs from losing their homes.

And FWIW, being fired does not automatically exclude someone from unemployment benefits.

All CAPS doesn't make it so.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RF

Not so. We lost 3 plus million jobs in the last 12 months, 5.12 million collect unemployment benefits...Now! The statistics dont count people who exhaust theior bennefits, and they dont count people who were fired. They sure as hell dont count people busted from full-time to part-time.

Do the math, RF.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

RF

Not so. We lost 3 plus million jobs in the last 12 months, 5.12 million collect unemployment benefits...Now! The statistics dont count people who exhaust theior bennefits, and they dont count people who were fired. They sure as hell dont count people busted from full-time to part-time.

Do the math, RF.

JB, being fired does NOT automatically exclude someone from unemployment benefits. In fact, employees who have been fired have a better chance of getting benefits than do those who quit.

The number of jobs lost and the number filing for claims are figured differently. "Lost jobs" are those not refilled. An employer may hire a replacement for someone filing a claim or that job might be seasonal.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RF

Thats the 2 headed snake argument youre offering. You once saw a 2 headed snake so THAT refutes claims that one headed snakes are the rule.

Tell ya something. I dont believe a gooddamned word that government says. I look at the numbers and do the math. They can say whatever they want, call things what they please, but they cant fuck with the bottom-line. Shit falls into one budget or another, then you do the math.

 

[DeeZire]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1VL4lk_K4KI&refer=home

OBAMA CLAIMS 3.6 MILLION ARE OUT OF WORK,...

JBJ - I read the article but I couldn't find the part where "Obama claims 3.6 million are out of work." Are you sure you're linking the correct article?

 

[michchick98]

They sure as hell dont count people busted from full-time to part-time.

Um...if they were busted from full-time to part-time, wouldn't that mean that at least they still had jobs and therefore EMPLOYED and not counted as UNEMPLOYED?

Yeah, thought so.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEE ZIRE

I posted the article for the reference to 5.12 MILLION getting benefits.

MICHHICK

Maybe part-time is okay for you, even one hour per week is 'employed' or is it?

 

[michchick98]

MICHHICK

Maybe part-time is okay for you, even one hour per week is 'employed' or is it?

Even if it's only one hour a week, it's still considered employed. You're on someone's payroll, regardless of how little money you make.

So, would you consider a factory worker who went from 60 hours a week down to 40 hours a week (with the threat of being cut down to 32 hours a week) in less than a month, then the following month took a ten-percent pay cut, which roughly averages out to about $700/month less than they were making two months ago unemployed? If so, tell me where to sign up to get my unemployment check.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Even if it's only one hour a week, it's still considered employed. You're on someone's payroll, regardless of how little money you make.

So, would you consider a factory worker who went from 60 hours a week down to 40 hours a week (with the threat of being cut down to 32 hours a week) in less than a month, then the following month took a ten-percent pay cut, which roughly averages out to about $700/month less than they were making two months ago unemployed? If so, tell me where to sign up to get my unemployment check.

Some folks might consider that unemployed, but odds are the government wouldn't. An employee whose work status has been substantially altered might qualify for unemployment. The kicker is what constitutes "substantial." If an employee goes from 40 hours a week to 20, in most cases that would be considered substantial.

One other factor: in many states, the maximum amount of weekly unemployment benefits has been cut back so much almost any income will usually mean more money.

As for the number of jobs: it's common practice in business to count both the number of workers and the number of FTE (full-time equivelent) positions.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Guest]

DEE ZIRE

I posted the article for the reference to 5.12 MILLION getting benefits.

No you didn't, James. You posted the link so you could insinuate that Obama claims that only 3.5 million are out of work, when in fact that's simply the number of job's he's trying to create through the stimulus program... as the article states.

Heavy handed and clumsy, even for you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GNOME

The article makes its claim and I make mine. Obama does make a lower claim for unemployment. Obama is lying.

 

[JackLuis]

Obama is a politician of course he lies, or prevaricates more or less. But JBJ you're still talking out your ass. LOL

Same old song and dance from the Congressional Leadership. They all let Bush destroy the Treasury and now they are all big D democrats together, splitting the pie in different ways.

DP, your right same old shit different flavor. The little guy is in for the short end of the stick again.

 

[Guest]

GNOME

The article makes its claim and I make mine. Obama does make a lower claim for unemployment. Obama is lying.

Well, I can't find anything to validate your claim, and I'm a highly experienced web searcher. Put up or shut up, old son.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Gnome, I did put up. If you have some different information post it.

In the real world of research you never do the fool's errand of trying to satisfy the skeptic who refuses to believe or refute you. Lincoln addressed this during the Civil War when he observed that some people wont be convinced by God and the angels swearing certain things are true. There are people so dum that they cant follow math proofs, and because they cant fathom the proof, they say...you aint proved nuthin.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Gnome, I did put up. If you have some different information post it.

In the real world of research you never do the fool's errand of trying to satisfy the skeptic who refuses to believe or refute you. Lincoln addressed this during the Civil War when he observed that some people wont be convinced by God and the angels swearing certain things are true. There are people so dum that they cant follow math proofs, and because they cant fathom the proof, they say...you aint proved nuthin.

No, JB, you didn't put up (any evidence). You made a claim that was based solely on your own calculations.

It's not the same thing.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Guest]

Gnome, I did put up. If you have some different information post it.

In the real world of research you never do the fool's errand of trying to satisfy the skeptic who refuses to believe or refute you. Lincoln addressed this during the Civil War when he observed that some people wont be convinced by God and the angels swearing certain things are true. There are people so dum that they cant follow math proofs, and because they cant fathom the proof, they say...you aint proved nuthin.

What you put up doesn't validate your claim in any way, shape, or form. It's your unsubstantiated claim--prove it if you can, which I seriously doubt. Anything, James. Any reputable source. C'mon--ANYTHING that shows you're not pulling something out of your ass.

However, as to whether I have different information... your claim is that Obama says 3.6 million are out of work. Might you possibly be referring to this?

"You know, we tend to take the measure of the economic crisis we face in numbers and statistics. But when we say we've lost 3.6 million jobs since this recession began – nearly 600,000 in the past month alone; when we say that this area has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America, with an unemployment rate over 15 percent; when we talk about layoffs at companies like Monaco Coach, Keystone RV, and Pilgrim International – companies that have sustained this community for years – we're talking about Ed Neufeldt and people like him all across this country."

TRANSCRIPT: Obama's Remarks at Indiana Town Hall Meeting
President Barack Obama's Remarks Before Town Hall Meeting in Elkhart, Indiana Feb. 9, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6837041&page=1

Which, of course, is a damned sight different than claiming that's number of people out of work... as you well know.

Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were (gasp) lying!

 

[michchick98]

Some folks might consider that unemployed, but odds are the government wouldn't. An employee whose work status has been substantially altered might qualify for unemployment. The kicker is what constitutes "substantial." If an employee goes from 40 hours a week to 20, in most cases that would be considered substantial.

One other factor: in many states, the maximum amount of weekly unemployment benefits has been cut back so much almost any income will usually mean more money.

As for the number of jobs: it's common practice in business to count both the number of workers and the number of FTE (full-time equivelent) positions.

Rumple Foreskin

That was my whole point. If you're drawing a paycheck from your employer, the government isn't going to count you as unemployed, regardless of how little money you make.

I was just trying to get JBJ to justify why he thought being knocked from full-time to part-time would require the government to count those people as unemployed when they're still drawing paychecks.

I was also asking if my cut in hours and cut in pay qualified me for unemployment, I wanted him to point me in the right direction so I can start collecting my checks!

 

[DeeZire]

This thread should be retitled: JBJ is Fudging Obama's Numbers.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RF

I'm not required to find a way to satisfy you or anyone else, plenty of people are never satisfied or stubborn or hopelessly stupid/ignorant and oppositional. If you got the stuff to refute my claim, lets see it.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ao4T6YQIFoRE&refer=home

HERE'S SOME MORE ABOUT OBAMA'S FUNNY MATH

MICHHICK

Well, some folks think that full-time work is optimal. On average, every American works 33 hours per week. I dont see any dancing in the streets.

 

[michchick98]

Well, some folks think that full-time work is optimal. On average, every American works 33 hours per week. I dont see any dancing in the streets.

So 1 hour a week or 33 hours a week, a person is still employed, they're being paid by a person or company to do a job. Therefore, they will not be counted as UNEMPLOYED by the government. That's what I've been trying to tell you. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll not respond to you further. I'm done with this. You're obviously not getting it...perhaps poor reading comprehension?

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

RF

I'm not required to find a way to satisfy you or anyone else, plenty of people are never satisfied or stubborn or hopelessly stupid/ignorant and oppositional.

Judge not, lest ye be judged, JB.

[threadjack]
Factoid disagreements aside, I need you help overcoming a senior moment. I believe we once discussed a very talented, conservative, gay female author. Her work can be found in many places, including National Review. For the life of me I can't recall her name. Can you help me?
[/threadjack]

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Guest]

Well, some folks think that full-time work is optimal. On average, every American works 33 hours per week. I dont see any dancing in the streets.

I think Obama agrees with you:

Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama
Radio Address
Saturday, January 10, 2008
Washington, DC

We start this new year in the midst of an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime. We learned yesterday that in the past month alone, we lost more than half a million jobs – a total of nearly 2.6 million in the year 2008. Another 3.4 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs. And families across America are feeling the pinch as they watch debts mount, bills pile up and savings disappear.


http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/your_weekly_address/

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

GNOME

The numbers will be worse when the February job losses are posted next week.

 

[Guest]

GNOME

The numbers will be worse when the February job losses are posted next week.

I'm sure you're right... but you've totally missed the point. Again.