Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Rush were to say it...it would be gobbled up without so much as a hesitation.
Well, that's the problem with crying wolf. When you put out so much spin and so many lies, eventually your name alone is enough for people to be instantly suspicious. Don't blame us for instantly doubting your information because of where you got it. Blame where you got it for having no credibility.
Quote:
However...The facts cited in the article should be self-evident. Unemployment and U6 Unemployment rates have trended downard. Therefore, fewer people are making SNAP claims and as a result...fewer are receiving benefits. On top of that you've got people making the claim that numbers cited at the height of a bubble should be compared to numbers mid-recovery. Apples to Aligators.
But then you've also got people who hail the Obama administration for cutting the deficit in half without mentioning the fact that he first tripled it. So he hasn't actually cut the deficit at all. He's only cut his own increase from 100% increase down to 50% increase.
You spend $5.
I spend $15.
Next year, I spend $7.50. Then I say "look how much more responsible I am than cardinal, I've cut spending in half!"
It's bogus.
Quote:
Notice the numbers cited below on both charts for 2007....and then notice the points at 2012.....these are their "apples to apples???" hahaha!
It's no different than liberals comparing spending only within the Obama administration rather than comparing spending between Obama and Bush.
Quote:
You'd think this would be an easy one to grasp: UE/U6 down....more people working....fewer SNAP claims needed...but we'll just have to wait for Fox to run a report on it before the others get it.
And you'd think it would an easy one to grasp: Unemployment down because people are leaving the workforce, not because they are getting jobs. But liberals still hailed Obama as a hero for lowering unemployment.
Well, that's the problem with crying wolf. When you put out so much spin and so many lies, eventually your name alone is enough for people to be instantly suspicious. Don't blame us for instantly doubting your information because of where you got it. Blame where you got it for having no credibility.
Quote:
I said previously that I'm not a fan of MoJo. They're just as bad as Fox...but like Fox...they do put out information that is relevant and important on occasion.
But then you've also got people who hail the Obama administration for cutting the deficit in half without mentioning the fact that he first tripled it. So he hasn't actually cut the deficit at all. He's only cut his own increase from 100% increase down to 50% increase.
Quote:
He added to the deficit in response to an economy that was in a tail spin. The stimulus immediately impacted all economic metrics positively and they've continued as assistance tiered down. Aggregate demand in our economy prior to the stimulus was hemmoraging...it needed to be done and a substantial body of evidence exists to suggest that the only thing the stimulus got wrong was it's size....it was way too small for an economy of our size. Even the right-wing economic mecca of Poland utilized a stimulus to increase aggregate demand.
You spend $5.
I spend $15.
Next year, I spend $7.50. Then I say "look how much more responsible I am than cardinal, I've cut spending in half!"
Quote:
To echo someone you probably have a good amount of distaste for, the deficit is important and needs to be addressed aggressively...but not during a recession or a recovery. Once the economy is moving along well...then become a deficit hawk. Cut spending and raise taxes during the bust...not the boom.
It's bogus.
It's no different than liberals comparing spending only within the Obama administration rather than comparing spending between Obama and Bush.
Quote:
The metrics have to be gauged against a longer constant. I'm not saying I agree with all mathematical models projected by MoJo...not by any stretch. But to look at SNAP benefits solely on one year in 2007 (the absolute height of the real estate market and the highest ever tax receipts in recorded history), in hopes of creating a substantive point against SNAP benfits and their growth/reduction is baffling. Use a long-run statistical average gauging time after a recession for a more accurate gauge.
And you'd think it would an easy one to grasp: Unemployment down because people are leaving the workforce, not because they are getting jobs. But liberals still hailed Obama as a hero for lowering unemployment.
U6 unemployment gauges those who have left the job force because of an inability to find work...that is trending downward also.
U6 unemployment gauges those who have left the job force because of an inability to find work...that is trending downward also.
That's not necessarily good news is it ?
Just because a number is going down doesn't mean all is well in America.
After so many weeks they cease to exist as far as the BLS is concerned.
But they are really still out there, jobless and looking.
The number of enrollee's is lowering and the number of benefits paid out is lower with CBO projections indicating they will be lower each year. I'm sorry if you don't like the numbers, but they are what they are. I'm not a big fan of MoJo either, but shooting the source simply because you don't like it doesn't consistute a valid argument.
Despite incessant conjecture from the hard right about how programs designed to help the less fortunate eat and stay out of abject poverty are bankrupting the economy, the SNAP program's balance sheets are beginning to balance themselves because the economy is heading in the right direction. Primarily because of economic recovery, the food stamp beneifts are predicted to return to levels seen in 1995. Balancing the budget on the backs of the impoverished is never the right thing to do, and I for one and happy to see the SNAP enrollment lowering because of economic growth instead of blind cuts.
U6 unemployment gauges those who have left the job force because of an inability to find work...that is trending downward also.
the socalled rate may be trending downward...but actual unemployment is not
UE RATE jan 2009....7.8 (the lowest month that ENTIRE YEAR
Americans Employed, January 2009:.................. 142,187,000
USA POPULATION january 2009......305,529,237
UE RATE OCT 2013....7.3
Americans Employed, today:............................. 142,101,000
usa population TODAY.................316,668,567
the population has grown over 11 million, and not one job added in 5 years
the population has expanded by 11 million, and less people are working, yet you have a lower RATE???
if you cant see the problem, then you are truely wearing partisan blinders
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
