873,000 Jobs in September

[Wnderer]

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/10 ... t-kidding/

Here are Mr. Welch’s facts. To hold the unemployment rate even as the population grows, he said, the economy needs to add between 150,000 and 200,000 jobs a month.

“We haven’t reached those numbers at all,” Mr. Welch said. Employers added a seasonally adjusted 114,000 jobs in September, down from a revised 142,000 jobs in August. The economy, however, has added 143,000 jobs a month after revisions this year.

The former GE chief also raised questions about job growth shown in the household survey, which is the source of the unemployment rate. That survey showed a healthy jump of 873,000 jobs in the month, at odds with the 114,000-job gain in the survey of businesses.

873,000 LOL We're not just breaking even. We're not just in positive territory, plus 200,000 jobs in month good news territory. Not even terrific news plus 400,000 territory. It's a freakin' boom. The business survey 114,000. The household survey 873,000. A slight discrepancy there.

[Whammy]

Easy enough to fix:

Those hard-to-reconcile figures — a decline in the jobless rate even though job growth was relatively weak — appear to be at least partly explained by a sharp increase in the number of Americans who found part-time jobs and counted themselves as employed.

The Associated Press notes that: "The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. ... The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months."

The BLS report also says there were 456,000 fewer people counted as being among the unemployed last month.

NPR

Seriously, it's not some vast conspiracy to 'cook the books'. It's just all a mixture of:

-Updated numbers for past months
-Discrepancy between surveying households and surveying businesses, with people working part-time considering themselves employed while the businesses just go with how many they have employed and how long they work and other stuff (so they might not count part-time people).
-Lower work force participation rate (which is probably the most troublesome and why I take all the job numbers with a pinch of salt).

People really need to actually look at how the BLS works =P.

Why Do The Jobs Numbers Change?

[Silknor]

Actually the labor force participation rate went up.

I love the idea that there's a massive conspiracy that includes reporting a fairly mediocre top-line number. But the Republicans have been saying government is incompetent, so who knows!

[Wnderer]

873,000 jobs added in September is a ridiculous number. It's neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light number. I don't think there is a conspiracy at the BLS. But there is one in accepting this number as real. The headline on the Washington Post front page is "Unemployment dips to 7.8% a four-year low, numbers are boon to Obama Campaign, More people secured work than giving up." Then grudgingly near the end on page 12.

The September unemployment rate fell dramatically despite the mediocre number of 114,000 jobs created. That's because the government survey of American households -- which determines the jobless rate -- reported substantially stronger employment gains than a survey of employers -- which establishes the overall job number.

Some analysts say this divergence may have been a fluke, while others said it could signal that gains in self-employment and in business start-ups were not captured in the overall job figure.

The two numbers should even out over time, economists said. About 873,000 more Americans reported having jobs in the survey of households, the largest increase since 1983. About 456,000 fewer people reported not having a job but wanting one.

"The rule of thumb when the two surveys tell different stories in the same month is to give much more weight to what employers say", said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "Nevertheless, the September household survey provides a reason to be a little more optimistic about job opportunities for the American workers than we have been in recent months."

[Jave D]

873,000 jobs added in September is a ridiculous number. It's neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light number.

Well, no. The latter is physically impossible. The former is not.

[Whammy]

Actually the labor force participation rate went up.

I love the idea that there's a massive conspiracy that includes reporting a fairly mediocre top-line number. But the Republicans have been saying government is incompetent, so who knows!

Oh, I didn't know that the labor participation rate went up; that seemed to have not been mentioned in the articles I read. In that case, this report is really good news ^_^.

[CorruptUser]

...unless the employment rate is going up because two people have part-time jobs instead of one person with a full-time job.

[Whammy]

Well, yeah, that's true, and I believe that is what a lot of this month's numbers were based on (people on the household surveys taking part-time jobs and considering themselves employed). Still, I'm willing to take any kind of good news I can get in terms of the economy; even a part time job at least gets money in people's pockets even if it's not the ideal situation.

[Lucrece]

Even if the report were true, it's the Fox News media narrative that the people that need convincing will be paying attention to, and you can rest assured no mentions of such positive reports will be made by the partisan hacks over there.

People don't care about reports; they care what their friends babble on about watching on TV and the confirmation bias that comes with it.

In states with Republican governors and legislatures, if Obama's policies were successful, the party faithful would happily allow their elected officials to steal the credit for the improvement. The same would be the case for Democrats, the difference being that Democrat officials aren't as batshit crazy.

[Iulus Cofield]

...unless the employment rate is going up because two people have part-time jobs instead of one person with a full-time job.

What's a "full-time" job?

[Jesse]

...unless the employment rate is going up because two people have part-time jobs instead of one person with a full-time job.

What's a "full-time" job?

30 hours+, no?

[Iulus Cofield]

Oh, I think I've heard of those. You mean like when they need people for the harvest or the holiday rush?

[CorruptUser]

Yes, but like, for months at a time. Years even. Sometimes, even decades (not making this up, I promise!) It was an age of legends back then. Oil flowed like rivers to your gas tanks. The television channels dedicated to music and history actually played music and history respectively.

But anyway, the economy could be roaring and the dollar strengthening like quick-dry cement, but until I have one of these mythical permanent full-time jobs, I won't believe any of it. As a [sarcasm]great man[/sarcasm] once said, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression when you lose yours, and a recovery when [incumbent president] loses his".

[Arrian]

Oh, I think I've heard of those. You mean like when they need people for the harvest or the holiday rush?

That's why you look at "seasonally adjusted," not the raw numbers. Then remember that seasonally adjusted is a statistical construct on top of the original statistical concept of how many jobs were created and add in some nice, wide error bounds.

[Zamfir]

Oil flowed like rivers to your gas tanks.

They still have those rivers in Nigeria.

[Impeach]

Even if the report were true, it's the Fox News media narrative that the people that need convincing will be paying attention to, and you can rest assured no mentions of such positive reports will be made by the partisan hacks over there.

People don't care about reports; they care what their friends babble on about watching on TV and the confirmation bias that comes with it.

In states with Republican governors and legislatures, if Obama's policies were successful, the party faithful would happily allow their elected officials to steal the credit for the improvement. The same would be the case for Democrats, the difference being that Democrat officials aren't as batshit crazy.

Oh for fuck's sake....

I hope you aren't one of those folks who thinks that all lies and propaganda come from the 'right' and that the level-headed democrats fight with their superior methods for peace on earth. Just admit that you don't actually know an awful lot about 'the people that need convincing' and stop assuming that all of them seek conformation bias over the truth. The partisan hacks over at fox are no worse than the partisan hacks over at CNN or any of the other propaganda outlets on TV.

You don't seem to even know what goes through people's heads when they criticize Obama. If you did, you would know that most people aren't concerned that Obama's policies won't turn out to be successful. Just IMPLEMENTING the policies is an absolute failure of the most basic ideas that this country was founded on. There is no compromising with the right to a fair trial, NONE. If Bush had removed that right, you would be screaming at the top of your voice about it. But since Obama removed that right, it's all good?

You do the same thing when it comes to the economy. I don't care that bush fucked it up because he is a separate person from Obama. But are you really going to defend the man when it comes to the economy? He spent more money in his first two years than every president in history out together, dolling out a few trillion to the bank of fucking china. He implements policies that you can watch video of him explaining are designed 'to bankrupt the coal industry' yet writes wavers to GE to let them stay in business. He is the biggest wall street sellout in history as well as Monsanto's biggest lobbyist, but he isn't bush so you don't know not to support him? The fact that we still get the bullshit employment numbers of less than 8% doesn't bother you? And do you really think that these reports are given out of a benevolent motivation to keep everyone informed and not out of a motivation to gain support for one or another candidate?

Maybe I am just picking up the wrong signals form your post and responding as if you are something you aren't but I am pretty sure that's not the case.

Edit: What makes me sure I am not misunderstand you is your claim that Democrat officials are somehow not batshit crazy or are less batshit crazy than republicans. Im pretty sure you only think this because "People don't care about reports; they care what their friends babble on about watching on TV and the confirmation bias that comes with it."

[Thesh]

You do the same thing when it comes to the economy. I don't care that bush fucked it up because he is a separate person from Obama. But are you really going to defend the man when it comes to the economy? He spent more money in his first two years than every president in history out together, dolling out a few trillion to the bank of fucking china

Are you talking about the 2009 budget? Because that was Bush's, and a huge portion of that was paying for the wars (as well as TARP, which was under Bush's presidency as well). A large chunk of the deficit was due to the lack of revenues, which was in part caused by the Bush tax cuts. That deficit is dropping now, no thanks to the Republicans who refuse to allow any measure to increase revenue due to some silly idea that all tax cuts improve the economy no matter what.

The Republicans fiscal policies are based entirely on the fear of what they call socialism, but they don't seem to know what that is. Welfare? Not socialism. Public health care? Not socialism. "Income redistribution"? Not socialism. Taxes? Not socialism. Government owning the means of production? Yes, that's socialism. Even then, ask a Republican why socialism is bad, and you are most likely going to hear Hitler, Stalin, or some other non-answer that comes from a complete lack of understanding. The worst part is, single payer health care is probably the best thing we can do for unemployment, but the Republicans won't hear it because they fear a word.

Then think about the environment. Republicans refuse to even consider that global warming might be real, and they have this ideological attachment to coal, which we should be phasing out, not promoting. It's like just because the left is against it, they have to be for it.

So yes, Republicans are uninformed and batshit crazy, and if you really think that CNN is as biased as Fox News, then you are extremely ignorant. I don't like the Democrats, but they are slightly to the right of Reagan these days. The Republicans are just way out there, adopting Libertarian policies, which would work great in an ideal world, but we do not live in one. Of course, they only consider the fiscal policies of libertarianism, rejecting pretty much every personal freedom except when it comes to gun control.

[sardia]

You need to chill out, because your ranting is worse than whatever you perceive in the previous guy's post.
Btw, you really think CNN is a partisan hack? To who? You mean MSNBC right? Because you really put your objectiveness at risk if you think CNN has a democratic bias. Your best argument against Obama is his aggressiveness on the war on terrorism, and you kinda implied that this is so bad we should...vote for Romney? Unless you're a Johnson or Stein supporter, you should let us know, because this entire post is predicated that you support conservatism, aka Romney's party.

From a purely objective point, we care about 8% unemployment because it can affect the elections. Romney's been hammering Obama about this magic number, and Obama is trying to claim vindication for his policies for it. In addition, the unemployment rate, and the number of jobs per month has a predictive value to the presidential race.

Lastly, did you really claim that unemployment numbers are being changed to support one candidate?

[CorruptUser]

To be fair, CNN had this video, but didn't release it at all because it may have harmed Obama.

[Xeio]

The fact that we still get the bullshit employment numbers of less than 8% doesn't bother you? And do you really think that these reports are given out of a benevolent motivation to keep everyone informed and not out of a motivation to gain support for one or another candidate?

Well those numbers are around even when there isn't an election going on so... yes? Or are you accusing them of deliberately lying? Because if they wanted to cook the books they're doing a not so great job at it.

[Lucrece]

There's not much to say to a person who earnestly thinks that the current GOP is just the flip side of the Democratic party, instead of the party that jumped the shark and makes Reagan look like Carter.

They're not the same. There are not just two sides, and even then "sides" are not created equal, however much people like to claim that all politicians are the same rotten thing. There's a difference between a Cheryl Pflug Republican and Paul Ryan, and it is the Paul Ryan type that seems to be driving the legislative agenda in the House and Senate. There's a reason Olympia Snowe and her ilk are retiring from the political platform.

[Malice]

Impeach: "How dare you imply that voters are manipulated by the media! For example, [Fox News talking points]!!"

Point by point:

1. Yes, Fox News is worse than the rest. Nobody else puts out graphs like this:



2. An absolute failure of the most basic ideas that this country was founded on? Have you read the Constitution lately? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Tell me how Obama's policies would violate our founding ideas. Please.

2. Bush fucked with the right to trial much worse than Obama, who at least got a significant number of Gitmo detainees into court. Obama droned that one guy, true, and he's not great on civil liberties in this area. But very few people on the right are criticizing him for that, particularly because the Republican party barely seems to care. It's certainly not part of Romney's platform (and since he's all things to all people, that's saying something).

3. "But since Obama removed that right, it's all good?" Most liberals have issues with Obama; he's not a perfect President or a perfect candidate. But he's the only sane choice. Ask most liberals and they'll tell you they wish there was a real opposition party that wasn't based in fiction and lies so we could have a real conversation about these issues.

4. Most debt is held by America, not China. Interest rates are so low right now that people are practically paying us to take their money. Deficit spending is necessary in a recession. And most of the spending has come from the wars (that Bush didn't put on the books) and the Bush tax cuts.

5. Is there any indication that Mr. Bain Capital will be any less corporatist? (And is Obama corporatist or socialist? He can't fucking be both.)

6. Can you explain how the <8% numbers are bullshit?

7. Employment reports are taken so that voters and the government should be informed. The AIDS virus that is the current Republican ideology has unfortunately spread to attack even nonpartisan government records-keeping systems.

[Tyndmyr]

...unless the employment rate is going up because two people have part-time jobs instead of one person with a full-time job.

Yeah...as this appears to be mostly a part-time job boom, it's somewhat less awesome than one would think at first. Don't get me wrong, part time jobs are better than no jobs, but counting jobs purely by number has always baffled me. Jobs are definitely not all equal. You'd think we'd count them by salary or some such.

Also, I suspect this is not a conspiracy(though playing up or down the news WILL be done by both sides, as I'm sure you've already noticed), but merely an unusual example of two different metrics arriving at very different results. It happens. The real truth is likely somewhere in between, and I'm sure that over longer time scales, the two metrics show results that are much closer to one another(though I would be interested in long-term skew between them).

In realistic terms, we can evaluate the long term trends in unemployment, and it's pretty clear we're about back where we started when Obama took office...there was a big initial hump(that was trending prior to the election) that eventually reversed, and has been on a gradual decline. This is actually a pretty normal recovery pattern for recessions, and thus, is not a strong indicator either for or against Obama's policies in itself.

[sardia]

Congratulations, you found out the dirty little secret of all presidential candidates alike. They don't have much control over the economy, much less the employment rate. The best they can do is what Romney said, "Businesses will be more confident if they believe in the person at the helm."

[Silknor]

The 873,000 new jobs reflects gains in full-time positions, not part-time positions as many outlets reported:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of people with full-time jobs increased by 838,000 in September to 115.2 million, while the number of people with part-time jobs declined by 26,000 to 27.7 million.

In other words: All of the gains in employment were due to full-time jobs.

It’s right there in Table A-9.

How did all of those people get it wrong? By looking at separate table ( Table A-8 ) that shows a big spike in the number of people who want a full-time job but who are forced to settle for less than 35 hours of work because of the tepid economy or weak demand at their company.

See also here.

[Whammy]

....okay, that's it. From now on I'm just going to look at the dang report from BLS myself =P. Or at least keep more up to date with media...nope, just gonna go look at it myself. Cause this is starting to get rather funny for me; I think by now everything I said at the start of this thread is wrong XD. But it's a good kind of wrong since it seems that the economy is doing a lot better than initial sentiments suggested.

Except amongst those who are claiming government conspiracy to cook the books, but unfortunately they probably won't budge from that position even if we sat them in the room with the analysts as they came up with the numbers and pointed out the dang ethics of research methods.

[Impeach]

You need to chill out, because your ranting is worse than whatever you perceive in the previous guy's post.
Btw, you really think CNN is a partisan hack? To who? You mean MSNBC right? Because you really put your objectiveness at risk if you think CNN has a democratic bias. Your best argument against Obama is his aggressiveness on the war on terrorism, and you kinda implied that this is so bad we should...vote for Romney? Unless you're a Johnson or Stein supporter, you should let us know, because this entire post is predicated that you support conservatism, aka Romney's party.

What are you talking about....? How do I lose objectiveness by saying CNN is no better than fox? When did I imply we should vote for Romney and what on earth makes you call the conservative party "Romney's party?" How would you know what my best argument against Obama is?

From a purely objective point, we care about 8% unemployment because it can affect the elections.

You don't know what objective means.

Lastly, did you really claim that unemployment numbers are being changed to support one candidate?

Nope.

The Republicans fiscal policies are based entirely on the fear of what they call socialism, but they don't seem to know what that is. Welfare? Not socialism. Public health care? Not socialism. "Income redistribution"? Not socialism. Taxes? Not socialism. Government owning the means of production? Yes, that's socialism. Even then, ask a Republican why socialism is bad, and you are most likely going to hear Hitler, Stalin, or some other non-answer that comes from a complete lack of understanding.

Slow down man, the republican's fiscal policy is not entirely based on fear of socialism. That is a straw man if I've ever seen one. If you reduce a topic that huge to one point, you make it far to easy for yourself to dismiss tons of good information without a second glance. Just because the word 'socialism' is used does not mean that the evil republicans have nothing else on their minds. I would suspect they think "this policy is wrong AND it invokes socialism" and not "this policy is wrong BECAUSE it invokes socialism.

The worst part is, single payer health care is probably the best thing we can do for unemployment, but the Republicans won't hear it because they fear a word.

This answer comes from a complete lack of understanding of any side of the argument but your own. Whether or not the 'single payer' system will help unemployment really doesn't matter to me. I do not think that the federal government should have the power to mandate that I purchase anything and on that note I disagree with the law. That is the main objection to the law: it sets the precedent that the government can spend your money for you as part of their plan for the greater good. Oh and it's not a word that people are afraid of. They just use the word (which word do you even mean?) to refer to what they are afraid of because it's easier than saying "you know, that thing we were talking about before which was bad and scary."

Then think about the environment. Republicans refuse to even consider that global warming might be real, and they have this ideological attachment to coal, which we should be phasing out, not promoting. It's like just because the left is against it, they have to be for it.

You don't get it man. Stop thinking just along party lines. People don't have 'right wing' policies simply to back up their arguments against Obama. They feel a certain way (in this case they feel like conservatives i guess) and because of that they do not support Obama. My choice of candidate is a function of what I think is right, not the other way around. I happen to think that indefinite detention and torture of terror suspects without a trial is wrong. It was wrong when Bush did it and it is wrong today. Obama is wrong for doing this and that has nothing to do with anyone but Obama.

So yes, Republicans are uninformed and batshit crazy, and if you really think that CNN is as biased as Fox News, then you are extremely ignorant. I don't like the Democrats, but they are slightly to the right of Reagan these days. The Republicans are just way out there, adopting Libertarian policies, which would work great in an ideal world, but we do not live in one. Of course, they only consider the fiscal policies of libertarianism, rejecting pretty much every personal freedom except when it comes to gun control.

Really, if i disagree then it is because I am ignorant? I am having a hard time figuring out what it is you people keep responding to because it certainly isn't me or my ideas.... When have you ever met a person with libertarian fiscal ideas, who supports the second amendment, but rejects other personal rights?

Impeach: "How dare you imply that voters are manipulated by the media! For example, [Fox News talking points]!!"

Are you serious? Are you delusional or something? Remove the quotes from your bullshit concoction because I never said that. In fact, all I said was that it is the media in general and not just fox news that manipulates people. get your panties out of a bunch and actually read what I write. For example, I never once said that Fox News isn't biased because I'm not to stupid to see that it obviously is.

An absolute failure of the most basic ideas that this country was founded on? Have you read the Constitution lately? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Tell me how Obama's policies would violate our founding ideas. Please.

Bush fucked with the right to trial much worse than Obama, who at least got a significant number of Gitmo detainees into court. Obama droned that one guy, true, and he's not great on civil liberties in this area. But very few people on the right are criticizing him for that, particularly because the Republican party barely seems to care. It's certainly not part of Romney's platform (and since he's all things to all people, that's saying something).

"But since Obama removed that right, it's all good?" Most liberals have issues with Obama; he's not a perfect President or a perfect candidate. But he's the only sane choice. Ask most liberals and they'll tell you they wish there was a real opposition party that wasn't based in fiction and lies so we could have a real conversation about these issues.

Yes the indefinite detention of American citizens without the right to a trial, the actuall murder of american citizens via drone strike, the seeking of UN approval over congressional approval for war and other various acts of treason are a pretty clear failure or our constitution. Have YOU read the constitution lately? If so, you wouldn't need me to point out how Obama has violated it. If you are really asking me, not just rhetorically, I can certainly show you which part(s) of the constitution he has violated.

As for Bush, who the hell cares? Why does it matter what Bush did? We are talking about Obama and whether or not his policies are constitutional or not. Who cares who 'on the right' is criticizing him? What does any of that have to do with whether or not you are personally OK with a presidential kill list? It IS the kill list and other policies you care about, not the candidate, right? I mean, if Romney ran on a "rape you twice a week" campaign where as Obama had a more palatable "Rape you once a week" campaign, you still wouldn't vote for him, would you?

Can you explain how the <8% numbers are bullshit?

Yes: more than 8% of the people in this country do not have a job.

Employment reports are taken so that voters and the government should be informed. The AIDS virus that is the current Republican ideology has unfortunately spread to attack even nonpartisan government records-keeping systems.

Dude.... Those people are the real thing. Those are REAL people. Their concerns and hopes and dreams matter just as much to them as yours do to you. You CANNOT compare an entire school of thought to the AIDS virus just because you don't have any empathy with those people. Their motivations are just as human as yours and their wishes can't just be dismissed as not important because you disagree with them. How egocentric can you get? You've heard that dehumanization is the first step of genocide but have you ever realized that it is actually true?

[Tyndmyr]

Congratulations, you found out the dirty little secret of all presidential candidates alike. They don't have much control over the economy, much less the employment rate. The best they can do is what Romney said, "Businesses will be more confident if they believe in the person at the helm."

This is precisely correct. It's not as if Obama's twirling his mustache, reveling in all the people still unemployed...it's that people have inflated expectations for what the president can control. Sure, their actions do affect the economy...but in fairly indirect ways, usually, and exactly how this happens depends on a LOT of other people too. Both sides usually stop short of outright lies, but will gleefully use statistics in whichever way looks best for them, even if this paints a deceptive portrait overall. That's just politics as usual.

Also, on the topic of bias...yeah, CNN seems to have a democratic bias. It does not seem to be unusually strong, though. Degrees of bias definitely differ, and I would rate Fox as significantly more biased than CNN.

The Republicans are just way out there, adopting Libertarian policies, which would work great in an ideal world, but we do not live in one. Of course, they only consider the fiscal policies of libertarianism, rejecting pretty much every personal freedom except when it comes to gun control.

As a libertarian, I strongly object to calling the policies of the republicans libertarian in any meaningful way. This includes fiscal policies.

[sardia]

I would describe CNN's bias as one towards getting the highest ratings, which they're bad at, but w/e. I have a hard time finding bias when it's slight, can someone give an example of CNN's bias? Like did they yell at a GOP guy more than the democratic guy during the "lets ask each side" time?

As for Libertarian Republicans vs who's actually running, I prefer to see them from the goals they have instead of their principles. It sounds much better to say the federal government shouldn't waste money on those leaches, when it could be spending that money on us.

[Tyndmyr]

I would describe CNN's bias as one towards getting the highest ratings, which they're bad at, but w/e. I have a hard time finding bias when it's slight, can someone give an example of CNN's bias? Like did they yell at a GOP guy more than the democratic guy during the "lets ask each side" time?

Well, the moderator for the veep debates had worked with Obama, and he attended her wedding. That's a reasonable suspicion of bias. Certainly I wouldn't advocate having someone who worked with Romney at Bain be the "impartial moderator". This, however, is ABC, not CNN. I would describe both stations as having a moderate left-leaning bias. Not an extreme one, though.

The moderator for the first presidential debates was from PBS, not CNN, but here, you'll note that Romney was cut off by the moderator more than obama, and Obama got four more minutes of speaking time overall. This isn't dramatically skewed, but it's enough to support allegations that there's a bit of left-leaning bias in television news(excepting fox, obviously).

We have not yet had a CNN moderator, so we can't directly look for bias yet, but we will have a CNN moderator for the debate on the 16th, so watch it for yourself, and see.

As for Libertarian Republicans vs who's actually running, I prefer to see them from the goals they have instead of their principles. It sounds much better to say the federal government shouldn't waste money on those leaches, when it could be spending that money on us.

Oh, it's always easy to blame "leaches", etc. In short, any group that basically all the voters say "that doesn't include me". This doesn't make them libertarians, it makes them politicians.

Libertarians recognize that social spending isn't just about leaches, but want to cut it anyway.

[sardia]

I can argue that many Libertarians are only Libertarians until you explain to them that they don't get to claim those tax credits, deductions, social security, or medicare anymore. And then all of a sudden, it's get your hands off my government programs. True Libertarians, I guess like the Ronpaul, are low in number. You won't hear most republicans say: Yea, gut the military, federal reserve, social security, and medicare. We should take care of ourselves. The only reason the GOP would like Libertarian positions would be as an excuse to get stuff they want. I don't like all those regulations because it hurts my business to keep metal out of toys. Let's get government out of regulating business because libertarianism. Stuff like that.

[lutzj]

I can argue that many Libertarians are only Libertarians until you explain to them that they don't get to claim those tax credits, deductions, social security, or medicare anymore.

What sort of libertarians are telling you this? Credits and deductions, excised properly as part of a wider tax reform, would broadly be balanced out by lower rates. It's not like people my age will ever benefit from SS or medicare anyway.

[sardia]

Tea party types, they do love to claim libertarian principles. I'll dig up my old post about it.
Edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/ev ... wanted=all
Here we go.
On social security, I'm pretty confident that you'll get 50% or more of today's benefits in 2080. (a rough guess of how young you are, 18ish or low 20s??) I know that sucks, but its more than what you expected, 0. As for medicare, that's gonna depend on who wins the next 5 elections. Hint: Expect less old white people.

[lutzj]

Eh, there's still ideological consistency in not wanting to pay payroll taxes but still accepting the benefits of those taxes later. You are right, of course, that hypocrisy runs deep.

[Bubbles McCoy]

Tea party types, they do love to claim libertarian principles. I'll dig up my old post about it.
Edit: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/ev ... wanted=all
Here we go.

I remember this coming up a few months ago, but I'm not really sure what it's supposed to prove. Everyone featured in the article at best are ambivalent towards the support they get, no one's really going "screw everyone else and keep my benefits intact".

[Malice]

This answer comes from a complete lack of understanding of any side of the argument but your own. Whether or not the 'single payer' system will help unemployment really doesn't matter to me. I do not think that the federal government should have the power to mandate that I purchase anything and on that note I disagree with the law. That is the main objection to the law: it sets the precedent that the government can spend your money for you as part of their plan for the greater good. Oh and it's not a word that people are afraid of. They just use the word (which word do you even mean?) to refer to what they are afraid of because it's easier than saying "you know, that thing we were talking about before which was bad and scary."

A: "government can spend your money for you as part of their plan for the greater good" is a decent working definition of any government that runs on taxes. It's also what happens when the government requires a business owner to spend money to adhere to regulations, or when the government requires you to buy auto insurance when you drive, or when the government requires you to buy and wear clothing if you're going to leave your house, or when the government requires you to pay property taxes toward education if you own property, or...

B: The entire problem with using "socialism" as a shorthand for "that thing which was bad and scary" is the shorthand part. It precludes the speaker and the listener from explaining or understanding why something is bad and scary. This leaves an opening for an unscrupulous speaker to say "X is socialism" in order to signal that X is bad and scary, when X is not bad and scary and would not be considered as such by the listener if you explained what X actually was.

An absolute failure of the most basic ideas that this country was founded on? Have you read the Constitution lately? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Tell me how Obama's policies would violate our founding ideas. Please.

Bush fucked with the right to trial much worse than Obama, who at least got a significant number of Gitmo detainees into court. Obama droned that one guy, true, and he's not great on civil liberties in this area. But very few people on the right are criticizing him for that, particularly because the Republican party barely seems to care. It's certainly not part of Romney's platform (and since he's all things to all people, that's saying something).

"But since Obama removed that right, it's all good?" Most liberals have issues with Obama; he's not a perfect President or a perfect candidate. But he's the only sane choice. Ask most liberals and they'll tell you they wish there was a real opposition party that wasn't based in fiction and lies so we could have a real conversation about these issues.

Yes the indefinite detention of American citizens without the right to a trial, the actuall murder of american citizens via drone strike, the seeking of UN approval over congressional approval for war and other various acts of treason are a pretty clear failure or our constitution. Have YOU read the constitution lately? If so, you wouldn't need me to point out how Obama has violated it. If you are really asking me, not just rhetorically, I can certainly show you which part(s) of the constitution he has violated.

As for Bush, who the hell cares? Why does it matter what Bush did? We are talking about Obama and whether or not his policies are constitutional or not. Who cares who 'on the right' is criticizing him? What does any of that have to do with whether or not you are personally OK with a presidential kill list? It IS the kill list and other policies you care about, not the candidate, right? I mean, if Romney ran on a "rape you twice a week" campaign where as Obama had a more palatable "Rape you once a week" campaign, you still wouldn't vote for him, would you?

I am personally pretty okay with the President's kill list (although part of that is because I trust Obama not to abuse that power). Pretend I weren't, though: what are my options? I can speak out about it, I can write my Congressman, I can yell at Obama and protest in front of his house, but at the end of the day I can't vote for the other guy because I would rather get raped once a week than twice. (Note: I think the gulf between those two candidates is significantly wider than that; whatever moral qualms I may have over Obama killing a handful of individuals, they don't amount to hill of beans compared to a guy who will restrict civil rights, start a war [which will kill way more people than Obama's drones], and tank the economy.)

The larger point is that because Romney is the shittiest candidate I've seen nominated in my lifetime, I do not have the ability to use my most potent weapon against the Obama policies I dislike--ie., vote for somebody else. If Romney was a better candidate in a better party, I might still vote for Obama (I'm to the President's left on most issues), but I would very much like to have that choice and that weapon. Party democracies cannot function without sane opposition. Until we have a credible group of people who can argue that Obama shouldn't be droning people and that they themselves wouldn't drone people (or worse), I can't do a fucking thing to stop the droning. But talking about the droning will end up depressing Democrats and lowering voter turnout and handing the keys to the country to those other chucklefucks who want a land war in Iran. So harping on this shit is actively harmful.

Can you explain how the <8% numbers are bullshit?

Yes: more than 8% of the people in this country do not have a job.

That's not bullshit; that's varying standards of measurement. For better or for worse, the numbers the country uses consistently ignore people who aren't part of the workforce, including those who have given up looking for a job. "Real" unemployment numbers come with their own set of assumptions that must be explained--"Unemployment is X% but Y% of that are retired people and children, Z% of that is standard...".

The important thing, in the context of this thread and political/economic discussions in general, is that whatever measurement you use, it is lower now than it used to be. That's information we can act on.

Employment reports are taken so that voters and the government should be informed. The AIDS virus that is the current Republican ideology has unfortunately spread to attack even nonpartisan government records-keeping systems.

Dude.... Those people are the real thing. Those are REAL people. Their concerns and hopes and dreams matter just as much to them as yours do to you. You CANNOT compare an entire school of thought to the AIDS virus just because you don't have any empathy with those people. Their motivations are just as human as yours and their wishes can't just be dismissed as not important because you disagree with them. How egocentric can you get? You've heard that dehumanization is the first step of genocide but have you ever realized that it is actually true?

I compared the ideology to the AIDS virus because like the virus the ideology attacks the very systems that are trying to correct it. The GOP ideology harms education out of ignorance, discredits objective sources of credibility (the CBO, the BSL), warps our language, biases our media by claiming bias, etc. In a very real way they have reacted to losing conversations by destroying the means of communication and the reliability of information--that's horrific and dangerous in a way that typical ideologies are not.

I understand their motivations and I don't think they aren't people; but I think they are often ignorant, hypocritical, or malicious people whose actions are seriously harming the ability of this country to function and solve problems. They anger, sadden, and sometimes bewilder me. I don't want them to be genocided; I want them to stop. I want them to lose elections. I want them to be dragged, kicking and screaming in all probability, toward progress. In four years the rallying cry will be "keep your government hands off my O bamacare" and as a nation we'll be better off.

[Thesh]

I would describe CNN's bias as one towards getting the highest ratings, which they're bad at, but w/e. I have a hard time finding bias when it's slight, can someone give an example of CNN's bias? Like did they yell at a GOP guy more than the democratic guy during the "lets ask each side" time?

Sure, they called the Biden/Ryan debate a tie on substance, and didn't spend an hour calling out how much bullshit Ryan and Romney spew. This would lead me to believe they have at least some bias towards Republicans, and in general they are definitely a strong right wing bias (unless you consider the Democrats to be left wing).

[ConMan]

Oh, I think I've heard of those. You mean like when they need people for the harvest or the holiday rush?

That's why you look at "seasonally adjusted," not the raw numbers. Then remember that seasonally adjusted is a statistical construct on top of the original statistical concept of how many jobs were created and add in some nice, wide error bounds.

Eh, seasonally adjusted is pretty dodgy too because it still includes a bunch of irregular events. The trend is really what you want to look at to understand what's happening in the longer term, as long as you take the current end-point with a little skepticism. But if the US is anything like Australia in these terms, then the BLS will have spent so many years convincing journalists to look at seasonally adjusted rather than original they're not even going to try telling them about the trend for a long time.

There's also the issue of statistical error, which to my knowledge has been discussed in non-scholarly articles once in the past however many decades in Australia and probably even less often elsewhere, whose interaction with seasonal adjustment is currently poorly understood, but which is almost certainly not the main contributing factor to these results given how large they are.

[CorruptUser]

I would describe CNN's bias as one towards getting the highest ratings, which they're bad at, but w/e. I have a hard time finding bias when it's slight, can someone give an example of CNN's bias? Like did they yell at a GOP guy more than the democratic guy during the "lets ask each side" time?

Sure, they called the Biden/Ryan debate a tie on substance, and didn't spend an hour calling out how much bullshit Ryan and Romney spew. This would lead me to believe they have at least some bias towards Republicans, and in general they are definitely a strong right wing bias (unless you consider the Democrats to be left wing).

Yes, they are left wing as far as American politics is concerned. You may feel that your beliefs are the only logical position, and believe that you are just a moderate, but if 99% of people are to the right of you, YOU are the left-wing extremist.

As for specific bias, CNN I'd say is the least biased of the major news companies, but they are still heavily pro-Democrat. Why? Well, CNN had access to that "other race speech"...

[Thesh]

As for specific bias, CNN I'd say is the least biased of the major news companies, but they are still heavily pro-Democrat. Why? Well, CNN had access to that "other race speech"...

A lot of agencies had access to it. It was a public speech, it's just that no one made a big deal of it back then, not even Fox News although they did mention it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/02/_.html