Scrooge is a Republican

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If those of you b!tching about extending unemployment benefits would b!tch just as hard about shipping billions of US dollars to Iraq, you might actually have a leg to stand on. We obviously have the cash to aid people halfway around the planet who won't even help themselves, but some poor American slob is out of work and, oh hey, F that guy! He probably brought it on himself by asking for a living wage.

Same old strawman argument. The same could always be said for any thing that got funding by those that think the money could/should be spent elsewhere.

I'll ask again - How long should we extend benefits? another 12 months? another 18months?
At what unemployment level do we end the extensions? 6%? 5%? 4%?
Or do we just extend it permenantly?

CkG

Actually no, Benefits should not be extended but at the same time those that are no longer getting a Benefit and did not re-enter the workforce should be counted properly and not swept under the rug.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If those of you b!tching about extending unemployment benefits would b!tch just as hard about shipping billions of US dollars to Iraq, you might actually have a leg to stand on. We obviously have the cash to aid people halfway around the planet who won't even help themselves, but some poor American slob is out of work and, oh hey, F that guy! He probably brought it on himself by asking for a living wage.

Same old strawman argument. The same could always be said for any thing that got funding by those that think the money could/should be spent elsewhere.

I'll ask again - How long should we extend benefits? another 12 months? another 18months?
At what unemployment level do we end the extensions? 6%? 5%? 4%?
Or do we just extend it permenantly?

CkG

Actually no, Benefits should not be extended but at the same time those that are no longer getting a Benefit and did not re-enter the workforce should be counted properly and not swept under the rug.

They are counted.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Y'all miss the point entirely. Unemployment statistics are drawn from the number of people actually receiving unemployment cheques. So if the govt quits giving out cheques, the number of "unemployed" falls automagically, just in time for the election...

Doesn't mean there are actually more jobs, or that more people are actually earning incomes, it just makes prettier numbers...

It is done by surveys, not checks written. Might want to checkout the methodology at www.bls.gov.

Oh please, you bring these charts up of numbers like crazy and then when convenient you turn around and say it's an arbitrary survey.
Everyone sees right throught the crap now.

Good job everyone exposing these Modern Day Voodo Witch Doctors posing as Economicists.

Dave it is done by survey.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Y'all miss the point entirely. Unemployment statistics are drawn from the number of people actually receiving unemployment cheques. So if the govt quits giving out cheques, the number of "unemployed" falls automagically, just in time for the election...

Doesn't mean there are actually more jobs, or that more people are actually earning incomes, it just makes prettier numbers...

It is done by surveys, not checks written. Might want to checkout the methodology at www.bls.gov.

Oh please, you bring these charts up of numbers like crazy and then when convenient you turn around and say it's an arbitrary survey.
Everyone sees right throught the crap now.

Good job everyone exposing these Modern Day Voodo Witch Doctors posing as Economicists.

Dave it is done by survey.

Show me the people surveyed then.

Bet no one can. It's Voodooo.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Y'all miss the point entirely. Unemployment statistics are drawn from the number of people actually receiving unemployment cheques. So if the govt quits giving out cheques, the number of "unemployed" falls automagically, just in time for the election...

Doesn't mean there are actually more jobs, or that more people are actually earning incomes, it just makes prettier numbers...

It is done by surveys, not checks written. Might want to checkout the methodology at www.bls.gov.

Oh please, you bring these charts up of numbers like crazy and then when convenient you turn around and say it's an arbitrary survey.
Everyone sees right throught the crap now.

Good job everyone exposing these Modern Day Voodo Witch Doctors posing as Economicists.

Dave it is done by survey.

Show me the people surveyed then.

Bet no one can. It's Voodooo.

linkage

The Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey of payroll records covers over 300,000 businesses on a monthly basis and provides detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls for the Nation.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If those of you b!tching about extending unemployment benefits would b!tch just as hard about shipping billions of US dollars to Iraq, you might actually have a leg to stand on. We obviously have the cash to aid people halfway around the planet who won't even help themselves, but some poor American slob is out of work and, oh hey, F that guy! He probably brought it on himself by asking for a living wage.

Same old strawman argument. The same could always be said for any thing that got funding by those that think the money could/should be spent elsewhere.

I'll ask again - How long should we extend benefits? another 12 months? another 18months?
At what unemployment level do we end the extensions? 6%? 5%? 4%?
Or do we just extend it permenantly?

CkG

I don't see how it's strawman. The present administration is throwing cash around like it's going out of style. Propping up Afghanistan and Iraq, guaranteed loans for Israel, funds for propping up 90% of the dictators in the middle east, $400 billion over the next 10 yrs for old people via medicare. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Hell, why not extend unemployment another 13 weeks?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If those of you b!tching about extending unemployment benefits would b!tch just as hard about shipping billions of US dollars to Iraq, you might actually have a leg to stand on. We obviously have the cash to aid people halfway around the planet who won't even help themselves, but some poor American slob is out of work and, oh hey, F that guy! He probably brought it on himself by asking for a living wage.

Same old strawman argument. The same could always be said for any thing that got funding by those that think the money could/should be spent elsewhere.

I'll ask again - How long should we extend benefits? another 12 months? another 18months?
At what unemployment level do we end the extensions? 6%? 5%? 4%?
Or do we just extend it permenantly?

CkG

I don't see how it's strawman. The present administration is throwing cash around like it's going out of style. Propping up Afghanistan and Iraq, guaranteed loans for Israel, funds for propping up 90% of the dictators in the middle east, $400 billion over the next 10 yrs for old people via medicare. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Hell, why not extend unemployment another 13 weeks?

Yeah, I forgot - only arguments from the right are strawman arguments

What you argue is the classic strawman of - you spend money on X so why can't you spend money on Y. The left tried to use this same argument to say education didn't get enough money, then they tried it with the utility things after the massive black-out, and they've used it on many other things. Just because something else gets backing or funding, doesn't mean yours should or will.

What is the arguement for how we should decide how long and/or at what level unemployment "benefits" should be extended?
Is there any reason for extending "benefits"?
Is 39 weeks(3/4 year) not long enough? Why not?

The next question becomes... if they had extended benefits; how many would be in here trying to pin it as a political move by Bush to "buy" votes? Just like everything else he does(or doesn't do) - people like to bitch about it.

CkG

 

[preslove]

unemployment doesn't account for underemployment. Alot of people are still experience a large wage decrease and/or having to take two jobs (means less time with family). But hey! we got the unemployment under 6%!!! Voodoo Economics has been the Republican way for a while.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, I forgot - only arguments from the right are strawman arguments

What you argue is the classic strawman of - you spend money on X so why can't you spend money on Y. The left tried to use this same argument to say education didn't get enough money, then they tried it with the utility things after the massive black-out, and they've used it on many other things. Just because something else gets backing or funding, doesn't mean yours should or will.

What is the arguement for how we should decide how long and/or at what level unemployment "benefits" should be extended?
Is there any reason for extending "benefits"?
Is 39 weeks(3/4 year) not long enough? Why not?

The next question becomes... if they had extended benefits; how many would be in here trying to pin it as a political move by Bush to "buy" votes? Just like everything else he does(or doesn't do) - people like to bitch about it.

CkG

No, I just don't think it's strawman. If anything it's a false analogy I'm simply stating my opinion: we seem to have lots of cash to fund all kinds of programs, many less worthy than helping people out of work (again IMO), why are you so opposed to this particular one?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, I forgot - only arguments from the right are strawman arguments

What you argue is the classic strawman of - you spend money on X so why can't you spend money on Y. The left tried to use this same argument to say education didn't get enough money, then they tried it with the utility things after the massive black-out, and they've used it on many other things. Just because something else gets backing or funding, doesn't mean yours should or will.

What is the arguement for how we should decide how long and/or at what level unemployment "benefits" should be extended?
Is there any reason for extending "benefits"?
Is 39 weeks(3/4 year) not long enough? Why not?

The next question becomes... if they had extended benefits; how many would be in here trying to pin it as a political move by Bush to "buy" votes? Just like everything else he does(or doesn't do) - people like to bitch about it.

CkG

No, I just don't think it's strawman. If anything it's a false analogy I'm simply stating my opinion: we seem to have lots of cash to fund all kinds of programs, many less worthy than helping people out of work (again IMO), why are you so opposed to this particular one?

Sure whatever

I'm not just opposed to "this particular one" - I'm opposed to alot of gov't program spending.
But I still haven't seen anyone answer why it should be extended(except for people to "feel good") and also - when is it OK not to extend it if it isn't OK now.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

It's Christmas! I wanna feel good.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's Christmas! I wanna feel good.

So giving them an extra month to get a job would pacify you?

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

I guess, but 13 weeks would be a nice round number.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: preslove
unemployment doesn't account for underemployment. Alot of people are still experience a large wage decrease and/or having to take two jobs (means less time with family). But hey! we got the unemployment under 6%!!! Voodoo Economics has been the Republican way for a while.

No that can't be remember, the AT experts are emphatic that Wages are going UP so how can anyone be "Underemployed"?

 

[LunarRay]

Who is counted as unemployed?
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

Who is not in the labor force?

All members of the civilian noninstitutional population are eligible for inclusion in the labor force, and those 16 and over who have a job or are actively looking for one are so classified. All others--those who have no job and are not looking for one--are counted as "not in the labor force." Many who do not participate in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labor force activities.

What about cases of overlap?
When the population is classified according to who is employed, unemployed, and not in the labor force on the basis of their activities during a given calendar week, situations are often encountered where individuals have engaged in more than one activity. Since persons are counted only once, it must be decided which activity will determine their status. Therefore, a system of priorities is used:

Labor force activities take precedence over non-labor force activities.

Working or having a job takes precedence over looking for work.


Employed persons consist of:


All persons who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week.

All persons who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a family-operated enterprise.

All persons who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, bad weather, industrial dispute, or various personal reasons.


Unemployed persons are:


All persons who were not classified as employed during the survey reference week, made specific active efforts to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work.

All persons who were not working and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been temporarily laid off.


Persons not in the labor force are those who not classified as employed or unemployed during the survey reference week.

(bureau of Labor statistics... link)

I like the 26 weeks and then two additional 13 week periods if the statistically derived rate is over 6% during the first 26 and continues through the first 13..
Yink