2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[trixstar]

Originally Posted by jarrodsalas

Unemployment up in September.

In other news...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-...214054242.html

The full news on the unemployment rate

The U.S. economy added 156,000 new jobs in September, government data showed Friday morning, as companies maintained their steady pace of hiring.

The unemployment rate ticked up from 4.9 to 5 percent, largely because the labor force swelled with scores of new would-be workers — a sign that Americans are growing confident enough to come in from the sidelines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...for-september/

[preakness]

Re-elect Tent city Joe !

[jarrodsalas]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Donald Trump floats 'attack first' military strategy against ISIS - Business Insider

Keep in mind when you read this that when a foreign policy adviser met with Trump several months ago Trump asked him THREE times if they have nuclear weapons why can't we use them.

I just saw another Business Insider headline this morning and had to laugh.


A Fox News host issued terrifying proclamations about Hurricane Matthew: 'You and everyone you know are dead...And your kids die, too'


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/f...023303944.html


The headline to the link about Trump.

'Wouldn't it be nice if we attacked first?': Donald Trump floats military strategy ideas

[pac213up]

Originally Posted by Boo

Can you latch onto his balls any tighter? We haven't had a good President in 30 years.

It has been longer than that! And for the record I did not vote for Obama this last cycle. I just am able to understand he is not all that terrible and the problems of the nation go far deeper than the President, regardless of who it is. The fact is the majority of Americans are OK with the job he has done given the conditions. I am sorry if that does not jive well with the Foxnews perspective of things. Obama would easily have a third term if it was possible given what both parties are presenting us with right now.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by trixstar

The U.S. economy added 156,000 new jobs in September, government data showed Friday morning, as companies maintained their steady pace of hiring.

The unemployment rate ticked up from 4.9 to 5 percent, largely because the labor force swelled with scores of new would-be workers — a sign that Americans are growing confident enough to come in from the sidelines.

What does that even mean? It's worth their time to work now? I'm confused...

[irfuji]

Originally Posted by Panthersfans

Kudos irfuji, you are getting closer but still only partially correct. The constitution itself does not imply there is to be a separation of church and state. It simply decides that congress has no right to establish a religion for the people of the United States and cannot prohibit the people from exercising their choice of religion.

The phrase separation of church and state was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800s. Thomas was elected president in February of 1801. Later that year, in October of 1801, Jefferson recieved a letter from the Danbury Baptist (Virginia). Here is a large portion of the letter that pertains to the subject with bolder matter of Church/State:



" Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty : that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ. "

So to make this simple, the Baptists of Danbury wrote the president in hopes of clarity on the subject of religious liberty because in their opinions, it might not be clear enough that if the wrong person were to gain office, they might seek to regulate religious expression based on the assumption that the freedom of religion was given to the people by government, instead of these being inalienable right we have been given by our creator. If you study any on the history of religion prior to the formation of the US it is simple to understand why these people needed clarification before they recieved persecution on the matter.


Ok, now, the Danbury Baptists recieved a letter in return from President Thomas Jefferson, here again the content at hand:


" Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions , contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties "

Again to simplify Jefferson absolutely agreed with the Danbury Baptists that the freedom to worship lied between man and God, and that it is not the gov'ts place to determine a persons religion for them, assuring them NOT that we are free from religion, but that we are free of Religion to choose and worship as we see fit.

Therefore quite simply the "wall of separation" that is being tossed around in this discussion and country is not a wall that stops a person from religion, the "wall is to stop the gov't from deciding for us what religion we can have.

Im sorry to tell you you have been duped by politicians, the media, lawyers and religion haters that want you to believe that the separation of church and state was the brave, valiant act by the gov't to stop those mean ol' Christians from interjecting their values into the gov't, but in reality it was simply to make sure the gov't can't force you to practice the religion they decided would work for you.

If this is true then why has the Supreme Court consistently handed down rulings which reaffirm the separation of Church and State?

The Oklahoma monument to the 10 Commandments is a good recent example. Some Satanists said if the 10 Commandments (Christianity) get a monument we want one to. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and they agreed with the Satanists.

Some idiotic ones include why the pledge of allegiance is no longer said in schools. It had the word God in it and the Supreme Court ruled that because of that teacher led recitation of the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.

The most highly referenced case was between Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. (Taking this from Wikipedia and a couple other websites) "Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." In this case both the majority and the dissent agreed that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state" or a "separation of Church from State."

So while the actual implementation of the separation can be debated, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the 1st and 14th Amendments to provide a clear separation of Church and State.

[jarrodsalas]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

What does that even mean? It's worth their time to work now? I'm confused...

It's stupid political jargon used by the administration that makes it sound ok. What's different this month than last month? Not a damn thing.

[chezball]

Originally Posted by trixstar

The full news on the unemployment rate



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...for-september/

Please tell me you don't believe that number. The U-6 which is a better indicator is 9.7 as of Aug.

[irfuji]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

What does that even mean? It's worth their time to work now? I'm confused...

When the unemployment rate was being thrown around since the crash what people talked about was the true unemployment number.

Many people stopped looking for jobs and were no longer counted in the unemployment number. This is not accurate at all but imagine there are 1M people. 900k of those have a job so the unemployment rate would be 10%. But theres only 50k who are actively looking, and the other 50k have gotten so tired of being rejected they are no longer looking. The unemployment rate in this scenario would be reported as being 5% (50k looking for a job so only 5% unemployment). When in reality the actual unemployment number is 10%.

So using the above example, imagine that "suddenly", 25k of those people who werent even looking for a job decide that now is the time to start looking because they think they can now get a job. The unemployment number would "jump" to 75k or 7.5% because now you have more people who are looking for a job.

That's basically what they mean. There were a huge number of people who were unemployed and not looking for a job since they got tired of trying. Those people are seeing the job market strengthen and now are looking for a job and the total number of people that they can track has increased the unemployment number.

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by irfuji

When the unemployment rate was being thrown around since the crash what people talked about was the true unemployment number.

Many people stopped looking for jobs and were no longer counted in the unemployment number. This is not accurate at all but imagine there are 1M people. 900k of those have a job so the unemployment rate would be 10%. But theres only 50k who are actively looking, and the other 50k have gotten so tired of being rejected they are no longer looking. The unemployment rate in this scenario would be reported as being 5% (50k looking for a job so only 5% unemployment). When in reality the actual unemployment number is 10%.

So using the above example, imagine that "suddenly", 25k of those people who werent even looking for a job decide that now is the time to start looking because they think they can now get a job. The unemployment number would "jump" to 75k or 7.5% because now you have more people who are looking for a job.

That's basically what they mean. There were a huge number of people who were unemployed and not looking for a job since they got tired of trying. Those people are seeing the job market strengthen and now are looking for a job and the total number of people that they can track has increased the unemployment number.

I did not know this. thanks for the knowledge.

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by irfuji

When the unemployment rate was being thrown around since the crash what people talked about was the true unemployment number.



Many people stopped looking for jobs and were no longer counted in the unemployment number. This is not accurate at all but imagine there are 1M people. 900k of those have a job so the unemployment rate would be 10%. But theres only 50k who are actively looking, and the other 50k have gotten so tired of being rejected they are no longer looking. The unemployment rate in this scenario would be reported as being 5% (50k looking for a job so only 5% unemployment). When in reality the actual unemployment number is 10%.



So using the above example, imagine that "suddenly", 25k of those people who werent even looking for a job decide that now is the time to start looking because they think they can now get a job. The unemployment number would "jump" to 75k or 7.5% because now you have more people who are looking for a job.



That's basically what they mean. There were a huge number of people who were unemployed and not looking for a job since they got tired of trying. Those people are seeing the job market strengthen and now are looking for a job and the total number of people that they can track has increased the unemployment number.

Great explanation. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[babyfaceposey]

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-t...t-rate-3306198

Great post above. Here is the true unemployment rate.

[irfuji]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-t...t-rate-3306198

Great post above. Here is the true unemployment rate.

You can really turn statistics to say pretty much whatever you want.

I disagree that having part time work when you want full time equals unemployed. To me that's under employed.

When you account for the under employed, considering both the part time workers who want full time and those who have a job they are vastly overqualified for but cannot find a better one, the numbers start to look real bad. I haven't looked in a while, but the last time ti looked the number of unemployed and underemployed is somewhere in the mid to upper teens.

[cnewby]

Originally Posted by pac213up

The fact is the majority of Americans are OK with the job he has done given the conditions.

great OPINION.....

[ssbledsoe]

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by irfuji

When the unemployment rate was being thrown around since the crash what people talked about was the true unemployment number.

Many people stopped looking for jobs and were no longer counted in the unemployment number. This is not accurate at all but imagine there are 1M people. 900k of those have a job so the unemployment rate would be 10%. But theres only 50k who are actively looking, and the other 50k have gotten so tired of being rejected they are no longer looking. The unemployment rate in this scenario would be reported as being 5% (50k looking for a job so only 5% unemployment). When in reality the actual unemployment number is 10%.

So using the above example, imagine that "suddenly", 25k of those people who werent even looking for a job decide that now is the time to start looking because they think they can now get a job. The unemployment number would "jump" to 75k or 7.5% because now you have more people who are looking for a job.

That's basically what they mean. There were a huge number of people who were unemployed and not looking for a job since they got tired of trying. Those people are seeing the job market strengthen and now are looking for a job and the total number of people that they can track has increased the unemployment number.

Very interesting!
So we get all bent out of shape over a number that can be manipulated and isn't a 'real number'? Reality is such a confusing thing these days

[Ray27Ray52]

I'm not trying to be a dick so please don't take this the wrong way but why did some need the unemployment numbers explained to them? I mean, this is basic knowledge. At least I thought it was. Presidents have been cooking the books to manipulate unemployment numbers essentially forever.

More specifically those who oppose President Obama's policies have been saying this exact same thing for years. The unemployment numbers that are released do not include those who have given up looking for a job. If those numbers were factored the numbers wouldn't be so rosy now would they?

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

I'm not trying to be a dick so please don't take this the wrong way but why did some need the unemployment numbers explained to them? I mean, this is basic knowledge. At least I thought it was. Presidents have been cooking the books to manipulate unemployment numbers essentially forever.

Do you know everything about everything? Everybody has different priorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

Do you know everything about everything? Everybody has different priorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I absolutely do not know everything. But, if I'm going to talk about a topic I am at least going to be informed. Just sayin.

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

I absolutely do not know everything. But, if I'm going to talk about a topic I am at least going to be informed. Just sayin.

Kind of agree with you Ray. If you are going to toss stats around all I ask is for you to do two things. Understand what the stats are reporting and take them with a grain of salt. If you didn't know what went in the unemployment rate but used it to hold something against one side or the other, you look foolish. Not that hard, and to be honest, understanding these things may help give you insight into issues you didn't know were there or issues that don't really exist.

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

I absolutely do not know everything. But, if I'm going to talk about a topic I am at least going to be informed. Just sayin.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be involved in the political topics thread unless they have intimate knowledge of every subtopic that could be discussed? Because that would exclude pretty much everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Kind of agree with you Ray. If you are going to toss stats around all I ask is for you to do two things. Understand what the stats are reporting and take them with a grain of salt. If you didn't know what went in the unemployment rate but used it to hold something against one side or the other, you look foolish. Not that hard, and to be honest, understanding these things may help give you insight into issues you didn't know were there or issues that don't really exist.

Exactly. I wish I could comment on every single post in this thread that I disagree with however I do not for two reasons. First, I probably don't have all the facts to form an opinion that is counter to what has been posted. And secondly, I try to not be emotional. I'm not just going to come in here firing off a bunch of numbers with no reference when neither I nor the person reading it even understand what they mean.

I think the reason I posted what I did earlier was because it is just stunning how people take something at face value when it corresponds to what they want to believe. Pundits and economists have said for years that President Obama's administration have not included numbers for those who left the work force. That is since the beginning of his first term in office. If you haven't looked this up in 8 years, I'm not sure what we(not you, in general) really have to talk about.

[jarrodsalas]

I just learned that there are a few corporations that have paid little to no taxes. GE, Boeing, Verizon, GM, among others paid no taxes from 2008-2012. Also, 288 of Fortune 500 paid an average corporate tax of just 19.4%. Another interesting number...there is 2.1 trillion US corporation dollars offshore in tax havens.

Throw Donald in there and you have an evil evil bunch.

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be involved in the political topics thread unless they have intimate knowledge of every subtopic that could be discussed? Because that would exclude pretty much everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not saying that at all. As I stated in my response to Brobo, I have wanted to respond to nearly everything I disagree with. But I don't. Because sometimes, I don't know how to respond and sometimes I don't have all the facts to mount an effective rebuttal. That's when I keep my mouth shut and just move on.

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

Not saying that at all. As I stated in my response to Brobo, I have wanted to respond to nearly everything I disagree with. But I don't. Because sometimes, I don't know how to respond and sometimes I don't have all the facts to mount an effective rebuttal. That's when I keep my mouth shut and just move on.

I totally respect that. I do the same thing. I only chime in with facts/stats to the extent I understand them, or if I have doubts about my understanding I disclaim as much. But note that nobody who responded to the explanation about unemployment numbers had previously said anything about unemployment numbers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk