Liberal Forum

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 12:26 pm » wrote: Unemployed is not just a government term, it also can clearly include ANYONE not working, and Trump is right at about 45% of the country doesn't work.

He said the real unemployment number is 40 whatever.
Implying that many people cannot find work. As I explained it's insignificant....yada yada. It's his way of tricking low info fox viewers into thinking 40+ percent of people are struggling to find work and they are being lied to about the unemployment number.
It's ****, my parents are baby boomers and recently retired because of their age. Trump is saying they are unemployed. Surely you are smart enough to see that.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 12:39 pm » wrote: He said the real unemployment number is 40 whatever.
Implying that many people cannot find work. As I explained it's insignificant....yada yada. It's his way of tricking low info fox viewers into thinking 40+ percent of people are struggling to find work and they are being lied to about the unemployment number.
It's ****, my parents are baby boomers and recently retired because of their age. Trump is saying they are unemployed. Surely you are smart enough to see that.

It's not a matter of being smart or not. His number is working vs not working. He's not quoting some government statistic, that has been lied about anyway, to get this fictitious 5% unemployment rate.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 12:47 pm » wrote: It's not a matter of being smart or not. His number is working vs not working. He's not quoting some government statistic, that has been lied about anyway, to get this fictitious 5% unemployment rate.

Was the criteria used in unemployment numbers different during the Bush administration?

Just trying to figure out if this is a new fangled way of playing with the numbers or if Obama inherited it. I seem to recall it was no different during the Bush administration.

greatnpowerfuloz » 16 Feb 2016 1:06 pm » wrote: Was the criteria used in unemployment numbers different during the Bush administration?

No, it's the same, having been changed in 1994. However we didn't have chronically unemployed people that we do now, not counted because they had given up looking for work, and people transferring from unemployment to disability to ensure they keep getting government handouts.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 1:20 pm » wrote: No, it's the same, having been changed in 1994. However we didn't have chronically unemployed people that we do now, not counted because they had given up looking for work, and people transferring from unemployment to disability to ensure they keep getting government handouts.

So let's compare apples to apples instead of saying the "real number" is 40% or whatever ridiculousness.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 1:40 pm » wrote: So let's compare apples to apples instead of saying the "real number" is 40% or whatever ridiculousness.

But the government numbers are not "real" numbers either, are they?

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 1:48 pm » wrote: But the government numbers are not "real" numbers either, are they?

You admitted they haven't changed the calculation since 94. Let's compare apples and apples.
Trump lied when he said it was higher



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-42-perc/

Don't defend a liar.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 1:54 pm » wrote: You admitted they haven't changed the calculation since 94. Let's compare apples and apples.
Trump lied when he said it was higher


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-42-perc/

Don't defend a liar.

You shouldn't quote politifact to support your claims, when they've been caught repeatedly lying about Republicans.

And no, they haven't change the calculation since 1994, however you left off the rest of that statement, didn't you?
We didn't have chronically unemployed until Obama, and it's disingenuous to claim they aren't unemployed.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 1:57 pm » wrote: You shouldn't quote politifact to support your claims, when they've been caught repeatedly lying about Republicans.

And no, they haven't change the calculation since 1994, however you left off the rest of that statement, didn't you?
We didn't have chronically unemployed until Obama, and it's disingenuous to claim they aren't unemployed.

Are you saying Trump was being truthful?

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 1:59 pm » wrote: Are you saying Trump was being truthful?

I'm not defending Trump, I simply explained how he reached his number.
Are you claiming the Government is being truthful?

Here is a link of trump saying it. Proving politifact was not lying about it.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... S0XcvaPpsA

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 2:00 pm » wrote: I'm not defending Trump, I simply explained how he reached his number.
Are you claiming the Government is being truthful?

You said it's been calculated the same since 94. They were either lying the whole time or it's been consistent.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 2:03 pm » wrote: You said it's been calculated the same since 94. They were either lying the whole time or it's been consistent.

Are you just going to keep repeating yourself, ignoring the chronically unemployed that never existed before, who are pushed off the unemployment numbers?

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 2:05 pm » wrote: Are you just going to keep repeating yourself, ignoring the chronically unemployed that never existed before, who are pushed off the unemployment numbers?

Do they change the number to 40%?

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 2:14 pm » wrote: Do they change the number to 40%?

I've already done the math for you.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 2:15 pm » wrote: I've already done the math for you.

This started by you claiming Trump is really close.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 2:50 pm » wrote: This started by you claiming Trump is really close.

I explained how he got there. Either you are working, or you're not.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2016 12:39 pm » wrote:He said the real unemployment number is 40 whatever.
Implying that many people cannot find work. As I explained it's insignificant....yada yada. It's his way of tricking low info fox viewers into thinking 40+ percent of people are struggling to find work and they are being lied to about the unemployment number.
It's ****, my parents are baby boomers and recently retired because of their age. Trump is saying they are unemployed.
Surely you are smart enough to see that.

GB is either too stupid to understand this, or he's being dishonest and shilling for Trump.
I'll let him decide which one of those it is.

DEFINITION of 'Unemployment Rate' .......Unemployment is defined most basically as the percentage of the total labor force that is unemployed but actively seeking employment and willing to work.

Trump did not say that 42% of the country does not work.
He said that the 4.9% unemployment rate issued by the BLS is false, and that the rate could be as high as 42%, meaning that 42% of the people in this country are out of work and actively seeking a job.
That 42% would not count stay at home parents or retired people, but only people who want to work but don't have a job.
I'm quite sure that if that number was 42% the ramifications of that would be quite visible to all of us.
Not surprised that GB supports a filthy liar like Trump.

From a Trump parody account on Twitter:








http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capita ... ny-2300479

golfboy » 16 Feb 2016 3:34 pm » wrote: I explained how he got there. Either you are working, or you're not.

Except he lied and called it "the real unemployment" to slip one past the fox crowd and get them fired up. I've explained this.