| Author |
|
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3633
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 6:39pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Is my dear, dear friend Dave Pruitt, who I once called "quite handsome" a REPUBLICAN!?!?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 6:48pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
Don't let the fake unemployment figures fool you.
The numbers the BLS releases are worthless really. You'd have to get the actual BLS reports and wade through them to see what I mean. I do believe .pdfs of the reports on online and you can get them.
One would have to break down what sort of jobs, what do they pay, etc. and then factor in all the folks who are no longer counted as being unemployed because once their benefits run out they are no longer counted as being unemployed. Then count the ones who want full time work but can't find it. Then you might have a rough approximation of real unemployment figures. |
|
|
Gee, you mean like everything that makes up, for instance, Non Farm Employment stats? Wait a minute, now...didn't you tell me in our last go around that figures like that were useless? Hmmm.
Look, Michael, what exactly is your conception of the report which was released yesterday? Something like, "Good morning...6.1%. Thank you, for coming?" You obviously have never actually read an ES release. Why not try to indulge in the experience, just once? You don't even have to load up Adobe if you don't want to, here's an HTML link: Employment Situation Release
And, if your rationale were consistent, what would it matter? Though yesterdays release does contain some revised figures supported by tax data, all we're EVER really talking about is the Establishment and Household Surveys' sampling methodology. Are you under the impression that the Bureau of Labor EVER has HARD numbers on EVERYONE employed in our nation of some 300 million; either in the employment situation release or in, to quote your words, the "actual" BLS reports? It's sampled data, like everything else. And for the record, everything you've stated that isn't in the ES release is...no surprise...actually in the ES release. Including estimates of labor under-utilization; though not, as Michael Casselman has already stated, under-the-table employment figures. Now, if the term 'estimates' bothers you so, well, again, it is ALL just sampled data. That includes the separately tabulated reports which you're touting.
Finally, as always, it isn't ever simply the numbers, but, rather, the consistent trending of those numbers, in either direction, which matters most. You seem to to have ignored that all important aspect in your summation.
QUOTE:
| The government won't do this sort of calculation because it would expose certain uncomfortable truths. |
|
|
Tell me all about it, outsider. You know, if you and all the other 'outsiders' would take a day off from protesting the World Bank and get yourself laid, you'd all feel a whole lot better about life. You'll see, and you'll thank me for the suggestion.
QUOTE:
More and more of these economic realities can't be hidden because it is apparent in our roads, our schools, our hospitals, our energy grid, our transportation systems, our water management systems, etc.
It is like inflation numbers released by the government. Inflation is much higher than claimed by the government.
It is like banking and the news (everyone in any sort of related business at a certain level knew it) that Freddie and Fannie need a welfare bailout. The flea market didn't work so well for them (nor did it for Bear Stearns). The plan won't work but Bush et al. just keep pushing on and by the time the thing doesn't work Bush will be gone and Paulson just another failed Fed chief, like Greenspan is. |
|
|
The flea market? Cute. Tell me, has there been some secret Cabinet level shake-up that we ignorant sheep haven't been informed about? The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is Ben Bernanke. Hank Paulson? The Treasury Secretary.
At "a certain level"? Please. The bears were shouting about a housing bubble that could potentially rock the larger commodity world as far back as 2003. I'm being conservative, here. Greenspan, for goodness sake, was talking openly about it in 2006. And it's no different than the warning that was raised about Alt A loans which began to be heard in 2007, but haven't yet fully materialized (though defaults are at the 10% mark) to the point of making headlines. Bear Stearns? If Barclay's due diligence crew couldn't untangle Bear Stearns assets reporting, neither did you. You knew Bear Stearns was in trouble when everyone else did...when they let not one but two hedge funds miss the escape opportunity and continue to wallow in CDOs AFTER the Fed tightened credit. By May, investors were just waiting; and by June 2007, with their attempt to collateralize both funds, it was all but official. The managers MISREPORTED assets for at least three quarters, Michael.
Let me guess, you doped out the fact that the two hedge fund managers were going to decide to make themselves felons way back in 2001, right?
QUOTE:
Prosperity is a term that is relative. Yes, the USA is quite prosperous compared to an African living in the Sudan. I agree.
Truth just chokes some folks up. |
|
|
That's us...one rung up the economic ladder from sub-Saharan Africa.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Pruitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6184
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 6:53pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Well, I do seem to take that side a lot, don't I? I just like to argue with liberals because I tend toward the conservative. I vote for people, not parties. I voted for Clinton. I even voted for Dukakis.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Emery Calame
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5773
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 6:57pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Honestly I had no idea that Republicans watch Oprah. I thought we all watched O'Reilly 24/7 with fifteen minutes a day off for a puke break.
Edited by Emery Calame on 06 September 2008 at 6:58pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 7:04pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
| Well, I think it wad on this forum that someone posted where the US
stands on infant mortality, health care, and the like and we were not
so prosperous in those categories. |
|
|
Rather than cribbing from an exchange to which I believe I was a participant, why not lay out your own case. I'll be more than happy to debate the rationale of your specific claims.
QUOTE:
Sure,
we have cheap labor providing us cheap goods but is that really
economic strength? Maybe to someone who takes Econ 101 it is but peel
the onion and realize it isn't really prosperous to not be able to be
able to pay for what we consume.
To have presidential candidates not even talking about it is even worse. |
|
|
We have to "peel the onion" to realize this painfully obvious notion? Hell, I'll even argue in favor of your obvious points...the difficulty from the standpoint of encouraging thought is that everyone else is going to be agreeing with the two of us.
The above is some hidden truth, Michael? Hasn't everyone in this thread been knocking, respectively, the national debt and the budget deficit? Congressional spending? Haven't the majority been pointing out the fact of Presidential requests for supplemental funding? Touting the pros and cons of tax-rate cuts versus public spending (on this last, I'll grant a less than thorough argument has been waged)?
edited to add: Michael, you're better than that, I pity you.
Edited by Michael Myers on 06 September 2008 at 7:08pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Pruitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6184
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 7:10pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Har!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Marc Baptiste
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3633
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 7:14pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I tend toward the libertarian, Dave. What passes for "liberalism" and "conservatism" these days, scares the shit out of me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 8:18pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Honestly I had no idea that Republicans watch Oprah. I thought we all watched O'Reilly 24/7 with fifteen minutes a day off for a puke break.
LOL Emery you always seem to crack me up, you're a very funny guy.
They're boycotting Oprah?!!!!!!!
Oh Hell no, this shit is going to be nasty and they are making this personal because Oprah "is every woman" I am going to start a movement that everyone that loves Oprah and thinks this is shit, I will encourage everyone to donate money to Obama in the name of Oprah. Then those Florida bitches can "suck it!".
LOL LOL wouldn't that be funny if I could get that going, does anyone have any connections anywhere? LOL LOL
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Emery Calame
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5773
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 8:39pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I can't boycott Oprah. I'm already boycotting her by instinct in exactly the same way I boycotted barbie dolls when I was ten.
I did have a Bionic Woman doll though.
" Jamie Sommers is pretty. You can comb her hair...or undress her, roll down her leg-skin, open the flip pannels, and remove the machinery from her thighs."
Or maybe only the Bionic man had the rubber fake-skin. I dunno anymore. It was too long ago. It's all gone gestalt on me.
And that wasn't even the most grotesque toy I had.
No. That would have been Pulsar (TM). He looked like a body builder (in the most upleasant, cheesy, fake tan sense) and he had an invisible/transparent chest so when you opened his track suit and pushed a pannel in his back his lungs expanded. He even had a cd player IN HIS HEAD.
Sigh.
And people wonder why Gen X is so screwed up.
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/03/the_10_most_awesome_toy_ ideas_of_the_70s.php
Edited by Emery Calame on 06 September 2008 at 8:42pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Keith Elder
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1973
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 8:44pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Al: O
RLY? (Link to most recent example of Snopes doing exactly what Scott
just cliamed they don't. The do indeed regularly check the accuracy of
the content of emails even if they are only asked to verify the sender.)
Al, the point you're missing is that in the article you linked, they SAY they checked the contents. In fact they clearly enumerate each of the claims. They quite clearly obviously refrained from SAYING that in the Palin piece.
Blah, blah, logic, I got it, feel free to accuse me of lack of it, but read what they actually say without emotional predisposition. I can flowchart it for you if you want.
Edit: Al, not "Sal".
Edited by Keith Elder on 06 September 2008 at 8:44pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Gene Best
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 October 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4598
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 8:48pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Marc: What passes for "liberalism" and "conservatism" these days, scares the shit out of me.
I'm standing up and applauding (in-between typing characters).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14891
|
| Posted: 06 September 2008 at 8:52pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Al, the point you're missing is that in the article you linked, they
SAY they checked the contents. In fact they clearly enumerate each of
the claims. They quite clearly obviously refrained from SAYING that in
the Palin piece.
---
Um... Al noted that the content wasn't verified by Snopes a few pages back. What Al was rebutting was Scott's claim that Snopes doesn't bother to verify the content if not asked to.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
