Recession Is Over

fencerider2 · 11-06-2009, 10:09 AM

U3 10.2%

U6 17.5%

Fail

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

Alex-S · 11-06-2009, 10:12 AM

tell those lazy fucs to go out and get a job.

Its funny how long you can milk unemployment these days

**BigBadBuick** · 11-06-2009, 10:19 AM

Stop with the scare tactics.

fencerider2 · 11-06-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBadBuick

Stop with the scare tactics.

Your right, government numbers are scare tactics, silly me.

kapone · 11-06-2009, 10:22 AM

considering nobody asked me anything when i was unemployed (and not collecting unemployment insurance). How do they compile the data?

Is there anybody on this board that has been interviewed by the government when they were unemployed and not collecting the insurance?

I'm just wondering how its possible to compile data from a source that is not giving out any information ...

Plus I'm working for part time pay right now, but still looking for a full time job.

So how does the government know that I'm part of that U6 number?

They must employ psychics ...

Alex-S · 11-06-2009, 10:26 AM

the thing is most blue collar workers that I know that are on unemployment,, are also working for cash.

Just how the world works

kapone · 11-06-2009, 10:26 AM

OP there is a thread from your friend josh just a couple spots down ...

its titled

Government doesn't pad numbers at all...

so are we suppose to believe these numbers or not believe the ones in that thread ? ...

Plus again how is the data compiled ?

**Joe** · 11-06-2009, 10:34 AM

Nothing to see here... move along. All is well.

kapone · 11-06-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

Nothing to see here... move along. All is well.

were my questions to hard to compute ???

Or is it goverment numbers fit your theory this time so we can trust them now ....

fencerider2 · 11-06-2009, 10:40 AM

For the mentally impaired, how the numbers are collected.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

kapone · 11-06-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fencerider2

For the mentally impaired, how the numbers are collected.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

BTW it has nothing to do with being mentally impaired ... It was a rhetorical question ... Its a statistic since not everybody in the country can be interviewed every month. (According to your link)

So again are we suppose to trust these numbers but not trust the ones a couple spots down in this same page, were josh posted about the government padding numbers?

You, josh, and Joe either have to chose one or the other. Can we or can we not trust government numbers was my original point in questioning.

Sorry I didn't spoon feed it for you.

I guess we are all a little mentally impaired ...

fencerider2 · 11-06-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kapone

BTW it has nothing to do with being mentally impaired ... It was a rhetorical question ... Its a statistic since not everybody in the country can be interviewed every month. (According to your link)

So again are we suppose to trust these numbers but not trust the ones a couple spots down in this same page, were josh posted about the government padding numbers?

You, josh, and Joe either have to chose one or the other. Can we or can we not trust government numbers was my original point in questioning.

Sorry I didn't spoon feed it for you.

I guess we are all a little mentally impaired ...

Spin baby spin.

Duceanahalf · 11-06-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBadBuick

Stop with the scare tactics.

so did you move or something? just noticed monday or so that over night all the cars were gone

kapone · 11-06-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fencerider2

Spin baby spin.

so again when gov numbers are convenient ... you use them.

When there not, it "gov. padding numbers"

I get it ...

When you can't answer it.

Its spin from my part ...

OK.

fencerider2 · 11-06-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kapone

so again when gov numbers are convenient ... you use them.

When there not, it "gov. padding numbers"

I get it ...

When you can't answer it.

Its spin from my part ...

OK.

Why would they make numbers worst than they are? Where did I say they are padding the number?

Decoy_TT · 11-06-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kapone

were my questions to hard to compute ???

Or is it goverment numbers fit your theory this time so we can trust them now ....

No.

What they are saying is the numbers are even worse then this.

The government will consistently try and make things seem rosier then they are.

Why would the government make it seem WORSE then it is when it comes to the economy? That doesn't make sense.

So you have to be objective when you are reading economic numbers and realize that the stats are either:
1) Bullshit to make it seem better then it is.
2) Pretty accurate for once.

I dont see the government releasing figures that show things are worse then they actually are in order to instill panic in America when that is the exact opposite of what they are trying to do. That's quite counter-productive, no?

Now if the government was for some reason trying to ruin the economy in order to achieve some other goal, I can see that. But they aren't.

kapone · 11-06-2009, 11:51 AM

why would the government want it to look worst than it is?

was it not R. Emanuel that said "don't let a good crisis go to waist"

Gee if everything is rosy, why would we need change?

BTW I never stated the numbers were wrong.

again i ask when is it convenient to believe them ...

I never said these numbers were padded ... I stated in a thread a couple spots down you guys (josh, Joe, op) were complaining about obama padding numbers to make the stimulus or bailout look better ...

So again which numbers are we suppose to believe ...

the ones that contradict the bailout or the ones that verify its efectivness...

Zealot · 11-06-2009, 12:35 PM

Kapone, look at it this way. The methods for computing unemployment have been established, and are well known. If you can find fault in them please show proof. As for the "padding" Josh mentioned, it was an obvious problem with the methodology that can bee easily seen.

**BigBadBuick** · 11-06-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duceanahalf

so did you move or something? just noticed monday or so that over night all the cars were gone

Yeah, we're up on Belleair in Clearwater now.

XYNaPSE · 11-06-2009, 12:52 PM

I believe these numbers. I also believe that the numbers in jobs for the stimulus had errors. There is no underlying conspiracy.

As far as this being a signal of how the recession is not over... That would be incorrect, or in a way wishful thinking on your part. Assholes.

11-06-2009, 10:09 AM	#1 (permalink)
fencerider2 Puppet Masturbater	Recession Is Over U3 10.2% U6 17.5% Fail http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

11-06-2009, 10:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
Alex-S The Wolf Eating the Sheep	tell those lazy fucs to go out and get a job. Its funny how long you can milk unemployment these days

11-06-2009, 10:19 AM	#3 (permalink)
BigBadBuick Livin' Large	Stop with the scare tactics.

11-06-2009, 10:22 AM	#5 (permalink)
kapone Detailer extrodinaire...	considering nobody asked me anything when i was unemployed (and not collecting unemployment insurance). How do they compile the data? Is there anybody on this board that has been interviewed by the government when they were unemployed and not collecting the insurance? I'm just wondering how its possible to compile data from a source that is not giving out any information ... Plus I'm working for part time pay right now, but still looking for a full time job. So how does the government know that I'm part of that U6 number? They must employ psychics ...

11-06-2009, 10:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
Alex-S The Wolf Eating the Sheep	the thing is most blue collar workers that I know that are on unemployment,, are also working for cash. Just how the world works

11-06-2009, 10:26 AM	#7 (permalink)
kapone Detailer extrodinaire...	OP there is a thread from your friend josh just a couple spots down ... its titled Government doesn't pad numbers at all... so are we suppose to believe these numbers or not believe the ones in that thread ? ... Plus again how is the data compiled ?

11-06-2009, 10:34 AM	#8 (permalink)
Joe Sodalime is good.	Nothing to see here... move along. All is well.

11-06-2009, 10:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
fencerider2 Puppet Masturbater	For the mentally impaired, how the numbers are collected. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

11-06-2009, 11:51 AM	#17 (permalink)
kapone Detailer extrodinaire...	why would the government want it to look worst than it is? was it not R. Emanuel that said "don't let a good crisis go to waist" Gee if everything is rosy, why would we need change? BTW I never stated the numbers were wrong. again i ask when is it convenient to believe them ... I never said these numbers were padded ... I stated in a thread a couple spots down you guys (josh, Joe, op) were complaining about obama padding numbers to make the stimulus or bailout look better ... So again which numbers are we suppose to believe ... the ones that contradict the bailout or the ones that verify its efectivness...

11-06-2009, 12:35 PM	#18 (permalink)
Zealot Easy like Sunday morning	Kapone, look at it this way. The methods for computing unemployment have been established, and are well known. If you can find fault in them please show proof. As for the "padding" Josh mentioned, it was an obvious problem with the methodology that can bee easily seen.

11-06-2009, 12:52 PM	#20 (permalink)
XYNaPSE Highly Enlightened	I believe these numbers. I also believe that the numbers in jobs for the stimulus had errors. There is no underlying conspiracy. As far as this being a signal of how the recession is not over... That would be incorrect, or in a way wishful thinking on your part. Assholes.