So the GOP gets to say that govt. jobs are increasing without absolutely any backup but since the BLS numbers are flawed ( which they corrected as mentioned in your article ), factcheck doesn't get to reference any stats at all. Again, where is the GOP estimate coming from, do you have ONE link or source to back it up?
Link me to the source where the GOP got the 1 trillion price tag for the stimulus or are they pulling numbers out of their ass?
no, factcheck (and anyone else who disputes the number) should GET the info on how it's being calculated and then refute it with facts and solid grounded information. that's not been done. all i see is them posting a statement on what is supposedly incorrect GOP stats, and backing it up with MORE incorrect stats. real game changer, that. and here's some more reasons why the BLS is a joke: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=167621 it's not my job to prove the GOP stats. i didnt show up here yammering on about them. you showed up yammering on about how they were wrong, and linked to an article which is using a faulty premise. that's not my problem, its yours. instead of cut-and-paste blasts like you normally do, why not grow a fucking brain in that shell on top of your shoulders and do some research on it. you might actually learn something. you might actually teach others (even me) something. of course you might find out truth doesnt suit your cup of left wing lunacy and thats probably what is really scaring you.
Again, unemployment numbers aren't the issue here. GOP claims that govt jobs have increased more than private sector jobs, I would like a source for that. And the last time economy added jobs to keep up with the population growth was back in Clinton years, so let's not even go there. And from our article, BLS corrected its numbers in October 2009. Monday, October 5, 2009, 2:31 pm, by cmartenson After nearly two years of pointing out how the Birth-Death model by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been badly overstating job creation, I want to publicly recognize and commend the BLS for publishing the massive benchmark revision showing that more than 800,000 jobs that had been modeled into existence never really existed.
get your own source. i'm not doing your homework. agree on the clinton years statement, but thats irrelevant in the frame of this argument. go there or dont go there as you will. i could care less. now if youll excuse me, i have a presentation to give to my finance group. i'll be back in an hour or so if you feel inclined to educate yourself and come back to post about it. i am breathless in anticipation.
Again, you dismiss BLS for its numbers which they corrected according the article YOU posted but you can't post a single source how the GOP got its numbers. From your article. Monday, October 5, 2009 After nearly two years of pointing out how the Birth-Death model by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been badly overstating job creation, I want to publicly recognize and commend the BLS for publishing the massive benchmark revision showing that more than 800,000 jobs that had been modeled into existence never really existed. And good luck with your presentation, Chairman Tao, make those politburo members happy.
are you learning impaired? I don't CARE how the GOP got their numbers. i'm not trying to disprove them. i've done my job and thrown cold water on your original post, which you began here trying to make a point. if you want to disprove the GOP numbers, YOU do it. i'll look forward to your research. everyone knows the BLS birth-death model is a joke. google it and see how many hits you get. if this isn't clear to you, maybe i can see about putting it all in a pop-up book for you
You have done nothing of that sort, you bought up UE numbers when the issue was about govt vs private jobs and then disproved your own assertion that the BLS numbers are incorrect (your article says that it was corrected) And I am waiting on an answer for this.
LOL!!! Hermette punk'd again... So I guess of all those many times you used "factcheck" before in the past to support an argument, you have now admitted defeat on. ROFL!!! Funny how you used to champion factcheck until they said something you didn't like...
This recurring story, about how the unemployment figures are understated, is a waste of breath. For any rate of ue, except zero, there's going to be a percentage who have "given up". In other words, it's a wash (for argument's sake).