Romney: ‘I will put work back in welfare’

[MetalMilitia]

I think he means try to put people that can't make a living, into jobs where you can barely make a living, and be in debt while barely doing that. Great system. Either way he's full of it, and the future is bleak. Don't care who's president the next 4 years, but good luck ;yer going to friggin' need it.

So the fact that the economy is better than in 2009 is irrelevant to your decision? Unemployment in 2009: 9.9 Current unemployment: 8.2~8.3. So, no improvement. Odd.

Don't trust those numbers at all sir. They are a joke in my humble opinion. When you disregard certain age groups, people that have stopped looking, and people who's benefits are currently going and/or laid off - c'mon. 8.2 my ass ;)

[Freddy]

Actually unemployment was at 7.8% when Obama took over. It got much worse and has since come down a little (at least officially), but it's not enough and certainly not worthy of my vote.

Obama took over on January 20, 2009 and the unemployment rate for the entire month was 7.8% by the end of February it was 8.2%. By October it rose to 10.1%. We all know it is much higher than the 8.3% they claim today with the many who have given up looking for work. Yes, Obama should get four more years after doing such a great job with the economy.

[Ningishiddza]

I think he means try to put people that can't make a living, into jobs where you can barely make a living, and be in debt while barely doing that. Great system. Either way he's full of it, and the future is bleak. Don't care who's president the next 4 years, but good luck ;yer going to friggin' need it.



Don't trust those numbers at all sir. They are a joke in my humble opinion. When you disregard certain age groups, people that have stopped looking, and people who's benefits are currently going and/or laid off - c'mon. 8.2 my ass ;)

Obama took over on January 20, 2009 and the unemployment rate for the entire month was 7.8% by the end of February it was 8.2%. By October it rose to 10.1%. We all know it is much higher than the 8.3% they claim today with the many who have given up looking for work. Yes, Obama should get four more years after doing such a great job with the economy.

The methodology has changed over time.

From the Truman Administration to the the Ford Administration, unemployment was calculated this way:

Prison Population = Unemployed
Military Personnel = Unemployed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed

During the Carter Administration, the Prison Population was removed (and rightfully so) and unemployment was calculated this way:

Prison Population = Ignored
Military Personnel = Unemployed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed

So when you look at LNU000000 it says "Civilian Non-Institutional Population" --- so those people who are institutionalized -- for whatever reason: prison, mental facility, nursing home, physical rehabilitation center and what not are not counted.

During the Reagan Administration, military personnel were counted as employed (and again rightfully so) and unemployment was calculated this way:

Prison Population = Ignored
Military Personnel = Employed
Part-Time Employees = Unemployed
Underemployed = Unemployed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Unemployed

During the Clinton Administration, a number of changes were made, mostly to hide the fact that unemployment was rising and that would have doomed Clinton's chances of re-election and unemployment was calculated this way:

Prison Population = Ignored
Military Personnel = Employed
Part-Time Employees = Employed
Underemployed = Employed
Unemployed (and searching) = Unemployed
Unemployed (and not searching) = Ignored

When you look at some statistics, they are calculating employment the way it was calculated during the Reagan and Bush Administrations and the first 2 years of the Clinton Administration.

In particular, ShadowStats uses the method employed during the Reagan and Bush (the Elder) Administrations.

Clinton's definition of unemployed is a 3-prong Test:

1) You are available to work; AND

2) You want to work; AND

3) You are actively seeking employment (defined as at least one contact in the last four weeks (prior to the survey -- a telephone survey conducted of 60,000 households on the 12 the of each month)

Prior to 1994, if you had looked for work in the last 12 months, you were counted as "unemployed." That was changed in 1994.

U/E benefits have nothing to do with unemployment. It doesn't matter how many people are collecting U/E or not.

[DontBeAfraid]

Cite your sources lady.

[Reef Badlaw]

Yeah, the joke in '94 was; Clinton's great for creating new jobs. My wife 'n I have 6 of them.

Romney better learn a lesson about potentially 'over-promising' stuff on the campaign-trail. Redifining what work is may be a hornets' nest of unforeseen consequences if the timing is wrong. Creating jobs is the highest priority.

[Ningishiddza]

Cite your sources lady.

You're free to disprove any claims I make.

But everyone knows you won't.....that would mean you'd have to take your fingers out of your ass to google.

[DontBeAfraid]

You're free to disprove any claims I make.

Why cant you cite your sources? Is it really THAT hard for you to be intellectually honest?

But everyone knows you won't.....that would mean you'd have to take your fingers out of your ass to google.

I have done so in the past... you proved that if you arent citing your sources you are just making shit up... So now its on YOU to prove you are being honest... And I would have to pull my fingers out of your mom's loose ass... and she just wont have that.

[Ningishiddza]

Yeah, the joke in '94 was; Clinton's great for creating new jobs. My wife 'n I have 6 of them..

Oh, yeah, how could I forget. What was it? They bought laptops for a police department, and that reduced over-time so they claimed they create jobs or something. I can't remember.

Cite your sources lady.

Or....what...you'll continue to be the Ass-Clown-in-Chief?

Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

[The Realist]

Or....what...you'll continue to be the Ass-Clown-in-Chief?

Do you have ANY understanding of your obsession with asses, and clowns?? I'd guess not.

[DontBeAfraid]

Or....what...you'll continue to be the Ass-Clown-in-Chief?

fo sho

Go ahead. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Actually, since you are the one MAKING ALL THE FUCKING CLAIMS, it is up to you to provide proof that your claims have merit... That really IS how this sort of thing works.

[Ningishiddza]

Why cant you cite your sources? Is it really THAT hard for you to be intellectually honest?

For you it's impossible to be intellectually honest.

Apparently, it's also impossible for you to see too...

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm

Originally Posted by 2012 Annual Report Of The Boards Of Trustees Of The Federal Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds Page 7

The projected average annual rate of growth for the U.S. economy is 5.0 percent during this period,...

....so in your face again.

Boy, don't you look stupid.

I have done so in the past... you proved that if you arent citing your sources you are just making shit up... So now its on YOU to prove you are being honest...

In your dreams doesn't count....we're talking real life, not your fucked up fantasy life.

fo sho

Actually, since you are the one MAKING ALL THE FUCKING CLAIMS, it is up to you to provide proof that your claims have merit... That really IS how this sort of thing works.

You're the one who claims their false. The burden of proof is on you. It isn't my fault you're too lazy to google BLS.

Do you have ANY understanding of your obsession with asses, and clowns?? I'd guess not.

Who are you, the president of the World Ass-Clown Association?

[DontBeAfraid]

You're the one who claims their false. The burden of proof is on you. It isn't my fault you're too lazy to google BLS.

I'm telling you to cite your sources... So that your claims can be fact checked... That you wont cite your sources means you arent interested in your claims being checked for accuracy.... Which IS UNDERSTANDABLE since a lot of your claims arent accurate.

And its great that you cite about 1/5th of your sources... but that isnt enough to pretend you have made me look stupid...

So please... MAKE ME LOOK STUPID by citing your sources... all of them... from now on... do this and I will admit that your BA in being a bitch is a REAL degree and that you are a super stud for getting it...

[Ningishiddza]

I'm telling you to cite your sources...

You want me to cite sources?

How does it feel to want?

I don't take orders from you, Ass-Clown.

So that your claims can be fact checked...

Feel free to fact check if you want. I don't care.

That you wont cite your sources means you arent interested in your claims being checked for accuracy....

Again, feel free to fact check away, or post sources contradicting what I say.

Not that it matters, you nit pick everything anyway......just like this....

edit: would be great if you could use consistent sources though... like from the same periods of time and hopefully a recent time.

....consistent sources? I don't have to use consistent sources. I can post multiple sources, one with a Liberal slant, like the source from University of Southern California, and one with a Conservative slant from Business Insider, which is exactly what I did.

And you're too stupid to read them anyway.

And a more recent time? January 2012, and February 2011, are recent. If you want more recent sources than that, then you find a bitch to do that for your. Maybe the The Realist can be your bitch.

And its great that you cite about 1/5th of your sources... but that isnt enough to pretend you have made me look stupid...

Yes, claiming I didn't cite sources, when I fact I did, makes you look like a Fucktard Ass-Clown.....in front of the whole world.....people are laughing at you, but you're too delusional to admit it.

[AnneOminous]

yeah!!!

Cite your sources... Mr Reid.

[DontBeAfraid]

Yes, claiming I didn't cite sources, when I fact I did, makes you look like a Fucktard Ass-Clown.....in front of the whole world.....people are laughing at you, but you're too delusional to admit it.

citing 1/5th of your sources isnt really being intellectually honest though is it...

So for the 80% ish of claims you make without sources, you expect us to just believe you are being honest?... You must think we ALL have BA's...

[AnneOminous]

Don't Be Afraid has strict rules about citing sources....

See this other thread--- Not even Harry Reid is exempt from this hard, fast rule...

http://armageddononline.org/forums/t...l=1#post498341