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

[Ray27Ray52]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

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

That's fair. You are right. Those who responded to the explanation simply expressed their appreciation for said explanation. I just had a feeling that those numbers were going to be referenced later in the thread and wanted to nip that in the bud. Also, as I said earlier, I was genuinely surprised that there were so many that had no idea how unemployment numbers are calculated and manipulated.

[atoaz12]

Originally Posted by 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.

Should the rules be changed? Absolutely
But, I'm not going to be upset with a group that works within the parameters set for them to save money. That's not evil. That's smart business.

[Saraste]

Have the monthly released unemployment numbers always missed those who stopped looking for work or is this something that has started in the last 8 years as has been purported? It would seem to me that the statistics of those who have given up looking for work have been missing since prior to 2009. Going a step further, it would seem likely that even knowing about those who have stopped up looking for work is a recent phenomenon given the prevalence of computerized data that did not exist previously.

[jarrodsalas]

Originally Posted by atoaz12

Should the rules be changed? Absolutely
But, I'm not going to be upset with a group that works within the parameters set for them to save money. That's not evil. That's smart business.

I agree. Was just pointing out the media double standard.

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by 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.

Say what? Not paying taxes is evil? Guess I shouldn't be taking any exemptions or deductions then. Don't want to go to hell.

[CrownCollector]

The Clinton's once wrote off underwear on their taxes, but whose watching really.

[jarrodsalas]

Originally Posted by Brobocop

Say what? Not paying taxes is evil? Guess I shouldn't be taking any exemptions or deductions then. Don't want to go to hell.

My last line was sarcasm. Hell, even Mark Cuban is quoted as saying his (Cuban's) taxes are nobodies business.

[irfuji]

Originally Posted by Ray27Ray52

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.

The problem is that people love to pin the unemployment numbers on Obama. But that vastly oversimplifies the problem.

Every President, Democrat or Republican, has always reported the unemployment numbers the exact same way that Obama has. They use the smallest possible number because it makes them look good. No President has ever reported unemployment numbers that include underemployment and those who are no longer looking.

The start of the crash began with the deregulation of the Glass Steagall. Many people, Trump included, love to point at Bill Clinton who signed the bill into law. Problem is that it ignores the fact that the bill was introduced and passed by the Republican controlled House and Senate.

Now, this lead to the housing market crash, which was primarily the responsibility of wall street investment firms, banks who gave mortgages, and the credit rating agencies.

Obama inherited this problem. It was a massive problem that could have resulted in the next Great Depression. That is not an overstatement or using flowery language. The problem was that big.

Everyone hates the massive influx of capital that had to go Wall Street firms and banks but the reality is that this literally saved us from going into another Great Depression. Obama's actions, along with those in the House and Senate, are to be credited with ensuring that a massively complex and enormously dangerous problem was addressed in a way that actually kept damage to a minimum.

Unemployment could have been a LOT worse, the housing market could have seen much bigger drops in value, and realistically we could have lost some of the largest financial institutions in the world. That would have caused massive ripples around the world and resulted in a potential worldwide depression.

The problem is that because the problem wasn't worse and there was damage, people like to blame Obama for the pain that was caused and point the finger at him for bailing out the banks. It is hard to convince the average citizen that the pain they are feeling could have been much worse. All they focus on is their reality now, not what their reality could have been.

[irfuji]

Originally Posted by Saraste

Have the monthly released unemployment numbers always missed those who stopped looking for work or is this something that has started in the last 8 years as has been purported? It would seem to me that the statistics of those who have given up looking for work have been missing since prior to 2009. Going a step further, it would seem likely that even knowing about those who have stopped up looking for work is a recent phenomenon given the prevalence of computerized data that did not exist previously.

We're now going into stuff that I'm not 100% clear on so take my explanation as such.

They have always been calculated in different ways. They have also been reported the same way for a while. The reason they are calculated in such a way boils down to how do you calculate how many are no longer looking for a job?

You can calculate employed people relatively easily by payroll taxes. When you have a valid job from a valid employer it gets reported somehow.

If you are looking for a job you can work with job providers (both traditional and online) to get a feel for how many people are out there. You can look at how many people are unemployment. That's a relatively easy way to figure out the number of people, and therefore the percentage of people who are unemployed.

But how do you calculate when someone stops looking for a job? There's really no way to do that. There's no easy definable metric or source that you can go to that says, here's the people not looking. So this number has always been somewhat of an estimation and assumption.

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by irfuji

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.

True. I think it also does not account for individuals who have fallen off unemployment due to benefits tunning out.

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by 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.

Or you have someone who knows the loop holes and will close them.

[chezball]

Just because something ends up on your desk doesn't mean you have to sign it.
Clinton could have very easily vetoed the Glass Steagall bill, and if it got overridden then there's nothing he could have done after that.

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by jarrodsalas

I agree. Was just pointing out the media double standard.

You have to use the sarcasm font, man. Everybody's confused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saraste]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

True. I think it also does not account for individuals who have fallen off unemployment due to benefits tunning out.

Also, how many of those people have then started looking for work and how many of those fall into the ranks of those who are not looking?

Many of these numbers that get spewed out by government agencies are numbers that have little context except when compared to themselves (meaning August vs. September). This has to assume that the basis for those numbers remain consistent. Without knowing how any of these numbers are tabulated and exactly what they represent, I consider them mostly useless.

Personally, I want to see two sets of numbers knowing that they are both estimates. I want to see the number of people who are totally unemployed and I want to see an adjusted number stating those who are over-qualified for their job as was stated as well as those who are working part-time and want more. If someone were to ever come up with those numbers, I think that most people would be shocked at how high the rate is and how the number has likely been increasing the last few years (due to layoffs, plant/store closings/etc.) The number of "jobs created" are not going to offset that and I fear the numbers are only going to get worse.

[freethrowtommy]

Originally Posted by chezball

Just because something ends up on your desk doesn't mean you have to sign it.
Clinton could have very easily vetoed the Glass Steagall bill, and if it got overridden then there's nothing he could have done after that.

That worked out super well for Obama recently when he vetoed the 9/11 bill and then McConnell and crew overrode the veto and blamed him for the crap in it.

[JohnRyno]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ed4_story.html

LMAOOOOOOOOOO

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...D=ansmsnnews11

[corndog]

Originally Posted by freethrowtommy

That worked out super well for Obama recently when he vetoed the 9/11 bill and then McConnell and crew overrode the veto and blamed him for the crap in it.

The Senate vote was 97 to 1 and the House tally was 348 to 77.

McConnell and crew?

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by JohnRyno

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ed4_story.html

LMAOOOOOOOOOO

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...D=ansmsnnews11

The amazing thing about this is it is not the slightest bit shocking. We have known who he is all along. I can't even feign outrage. I'm actually more outraged that someone recorded the private conversation than the conversation itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[corndog]

Originally Posted by JohnRyno

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ed4_story.html

LMAOOOOOOOOOO

Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005

I don't think that comes as a shock to anyone. Everybody knows that Trump has an incredibly crude history.

[JohnRyno]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

The amazing thing about this is it is not the slightest bit shocking. We have known who he is all along. I can't even feign outrage. I'm actually more outraged that someone recorded the private conversation than the conversation itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who discusses finger blasting with the bro from Access Hollywood?

[JohnRyno]

Originally Posted by corndog

I don't think that comes as a shock to anyone. Everybody knows that Trump has an incredibly crude history.

Maybe Hill has a tape talking about Handy J's with Barbara Walters somewhere.

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by JohnRyno

Who discusses finger blasting with the bro from Access Hollywood?

Have some respect. He's not just the bro from Access Hollywood. He's W's cousin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[freethrowtommy]

Originally Posted by corndog

The Senate vote was 97 to 1 and the House tally was 348 to 77.

McConnell and crew?

McConnell said, claiming that the White House failed to "communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation that was obviously very popular."

Translation: We didn't read, nor understand the potential consequences of this bill because the President didn't explain it to us even though he did veto it.

[JohnRyno]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

Have some respect. He's not just the bro from Access Hollywood. He's W's cousin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And concocted the recipe for Bush's Baked Beans.

[Addison]

Originally Posted by JohnRyno

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ed4_story.html

LMAOOOOOOOOOO

Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005

Image what he says about his own daughter