Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

by **pacino** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:05:08

the report on Benghazi (sp.?) came out yesterday and blamed two parts of the State Dept for ineffective measures and lack of oversight. Apparently Clinton is enacting all 29 suggestions.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:39:38

td11 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:The unemployment rate dropped because while 122k fewer people were employed, 229k fewer people were unemployed on the household survey. Enough people dropped out of the labor force to make up for the decrease in people who were employed to bring the rate down to 7.7%.

Additionally in the payroll survey, the job growth numbers for September and October were revised down.

This is apparently nitpicking and by pointing out reality it means you want the country to fail so we can win elections (when there isn't a federal election for another 23 months).

12 days late, but i feel like every jobs report you bring up the lfp rate without mentioning that since the start of 2011, 10K baby boomers turn 65 and are discounted from the labor force number. that alone is like ~300K people dropping out of the labor force ever month. the overall civilian labor force drop from oct to nov was 350K

It's too bad no one in the country is 18-22 years old to replace them.

by **Soren** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:48:03

jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:The unemployment rate dropped because while 122k fewer people were employed, 229k fewer people were unemployed on the household survey. Enough people dropped out of the labor force to make up for the decrease in people who were employed to bring the rate down to 7.7%.

Additionally in the payroll survey, the job growth numbers for September and October were revised down.

This is apparently nitpicking and by pointing out reality it means you want the country to fail so we can win elections (when there isn't a federal election for another 23 months).

12 days late, but i feel like every jobs report you bring up the lfp rate without mentioning that since the start of 2011, 10K baby boomers turn 65 and are discounted from the labor force number. that alone is like ~300K people dropping out of the labor force ever month. the overall civilian labor force drop from oct to nov was 350K

It's too bad no one in the country is 18-22 years old to replace them.

Yea most 18-22 year olds are in a position career wise to replace jobs held by retirees. And none of those young people are headed to college and not the work force.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:16:27

There are more people of the age where one enters the working force than leaves it. In the last census 20.9 mil aged 15-19, 21.5 mil 20-24, 21.4 mil 25-29. On the other side 19.5 mil 55-59, 17.4 mil 60-64, 12.1 mil 65-69.

This isn't a system that started in November 2012. Some 18 year olds enter the work force, others go to college. Some 22 year olds enter the work force, others go to grad school. But there are 22 year olds with college degrees and 25 year olds with graduate degrees to match those 18 and 22 year olds starting school. And no one is saying those just entering the work force would be in a position career wise to replace jobs held by retirees. Weird comment to make there.

by **td11** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:23:38

My point was only that it's misleading to frame it entirely as as able workers dropping out of the force because they're discouraged when that isn't the case

by **pacino** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:33:12

We are going to see more and more people 'drop out' basically every year for several coming years now because of a generational shift that is occurring with both our country and thus its workforce. That's all td is saying. we can't simulteanously say baby boomers are going to balloon SS and medicare but then not also acknowledge these same baby boomers are thus no longer working.

Also, the unfinished point you appear to be making without making by nitpicking these numbers is that our economy is not good, and that your party, the Republicans, have the answer and we all just refuse to understand it. Lower taxes and voila, magically budgets are fixed, fridges are filled, cranes are moving, dozes are bulled, etc, when none of this would be the case.

by **Soren** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:33:26

My poorly made point was that it's over simplifying it to say retirees are replaced in real time by young adults entering the work force

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:36:35

td11 wrote:My point was only that it's misleading to frame it entirely as as able workers dropping out of the force because they're discouraged when that isn't the case

There are a number of reasons why people enter and leave the workforce, and workers being unable to find jobs is only one of them. But the enter/exit due to age should more or less wash out (if anything there are more young people than old people), so if there's a net decline in the number of people in the labor force, availability of jobs/weakness of the labor force becomes a primary explanation.

by **pacino** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:38:57

we've had a jobless recovery because there is not demand for many services, and we have so transferred to a service economy where wages are typically lower so there is not enough money for people to spend. the money is stuck at hte top, idling, sitting unspent (because we're all so very uncertain about the economy!) and creating no demand for goods and services.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:39:38

pacino wrote:We are going to see more and more people 'drop out' basically every year for several coming years now because of a generational shift that is occurring with both our country and thus its workforce. That's all td is saying. we can't simulteanously say baby boomers are going to balloon SS and medicare but then not also acknowledge these same baby boomers are thus no longer working.

This is confusing rate with raw #s. If a larger percentage of people are living longer after retirement, it shouldn't much affect the number of people in the labor force I don't think.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:11:35

jerseyhoya wrote:
pacino wrote:We are going to see more and more people 'drop out' basically every year for several coming years now because of a generational shift that is occurring with both our country and thus its workforce. That's all td is saying. we can't simulteanously say baby boomers are going to balloon SS and medicare but then not also acknowledge these same baby boomers are thus no longer working.

This is confusing rate with raw #s. If a larger percentage of people are living longer after retirement, it shouldn't much affect the number of people in the labor force I don't think.

feels like pac is about 3 ripostes ahead of you here today

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:18:37

I'm not going to spend my afternoon explaining why I think Republican economic policy would be better for the country for the 945th time while everyone else here yells at me for being a moron. Feel free to search my post history, the argument hasn't changed. The world's ending in 48 hours and I have papers to grade.

He (and td and Soren) is not right about labor force participation. I explained why.

by **Doll Is Mine** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:29:08

jerseyhoya wrote:Feel free to search my post history...

No.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:30:55

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not going to spend my afternoon explaining why I think Republican economic policy would be better for the country for the 945th time while everyone else here yells at me for being a moron. Feel free to search my post history, the argument hasn't changed. The world's ending in 48 hours and I have papers to grade.

He (and td and Soren) is not right about labor force participation. I explained why.

just trying to suggest to you gently that you have fought a tiny skirmish to a draw, while they have rolled you on the Battle of the (economic) Bulge.

"Republican economic policy" is some kind of misnomer if not an outright non sequitur. There is no "policy". There is ideology; no one - not you, not even Ryan - is willing to take the time to actually lay out how it's supposed to work, and for good reason.

Maybe you address reason that in one of your 50,000 posts, but I forget just now which one that was.

EDIT: sorry, 70,000 posts

by **slugsrbad** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:36:41

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not going to spend my afternoon explaining why I think Republican economic policy would be better for the country for the 945th time while everyone else here yells at me for being a moron. Feel free to search my post history, the argument hasn't changed. The world's ending in 48 hours and I have papers to grade.

He (and td and Soren) is not right about labor force participation. I explained why.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm sure I'll say plenty of really dumb things, and chances are you wouldn't pass up a similar opportunity to mock.

viewtopic.php_f=8&t=1084&p=232338#p232338

by **td11** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 18:14:38

the president's latest proposal actually does cut more in spending than it increases revenue over the next decade

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/program ... ama-offer/

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 09:35:59

td11 wrote:the president's latest proposal actually does cut more in spending than it increases revenue over the next decade

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/program ... ama-offer/

oh boy? so he has all the leverage and has decided to once again be a purposefully weak negotiator so he can appear non-partisan. he keeps moving the line for the republicans; of COURSE they're not going to agree to a deal because he just says 'oh, that's not what you want, well what about THIS?! what if i shine your shoes for ya, master?!' man, i sure wish there was a liberal, or maybe an actual strong-negotiating centrist, in this these negotations. instead, we have a weak centrist 'battling' a bunch of crazies who are united and realize he's weak. we have this idea that Boehner has to cow-tow to this caucus...well why the fuck doesnt obama have to cow-tow to HIS caucus...unless his caucus isn't actually the Democratic party but just DC in general. hell, he's once against been roped into tying it to the artifice that is the debt ceiling so we just have to deal with these same tired negotations in a year or two! i get tired of reading 'it's off the table!' with this or that when it appears to not actually be the case. Changing to the CPI IS cutting social security. Cutting rates is NOT raising taxes. a 'balanced plan' is not where you START the negotiations. :dh:

i guess i'm not sure what any of this has to do with jobs. preventing the 'fiscal cliff' in this manner will help nothing.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:09:26

grover norquist, brent bozell & the other right-wing profiteers carry on as if the supply of glassy-eyed infantrymen for their ever-threatened primaries from the ridiculously right is bottomless.

It's a dire truth that they're probably correct

by **pacino** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:26:39

yeah :\

so where's the concern trolling on the sunday shows from john and lindsey mccain about Benghazi and Susan Rice now that we know via the report she didn't have anything to do about anything, just like we already knew??? Can Susan Rice be secretary of state now?

3 state officials resigned yesterday, people in charge of security in the region. duh. apparently we never bothered to enact a bunch of things to fix our security at embassies since 1998...which is why we had so many issues during the Bush administration and now this event. we were basically relying on the country we were in to provide our own security. wtf? and congress wasn't giving nearly enough funding. we're going to add 1000 marines to embassies around the world.

and Clinton can't come to today's hearings because she can't fly until late January. Haven't they heard of GO2Meeting?!

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:38:57

Cory Booker running for Senate in 2014. YE

Archived

Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff

Re: Super Fun Time Politics Thread in Which We Discuss Stuff