Shut up and fix it...

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yes but the chart in question is from the us dept of labor statistics...

Always trust the gov't right? That's what you've taught me.

And it still includes what % of temporary jobs...stimulus $ jobs, etc. You cannot simply compare 2 time frames without the context. And I never said it isn't a real trend for the long haul, though I do question it, what I said was it would be interesting to see if it held or dropped off when the $ is all gone.

i will trust my department of labor statistics over any opinion of anybody on here that is for sure. did you look into the methodology of that report and that chart. doubt it...

care to address my point about how the filibuster contributed to nothing getting done, or is that truth an inconvenience for your side of the argument?

Jason P wrote:

The chart states it was made by the Office of the Speaker with source data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That indicates to me that the chart was derived by Nancy Pelosi's staff. I would be a little cautious to trust charts and graphs that are issued by high-ranking Republicans and Democrats. I'm guessing that 100% of the charts and graphs they issue probably make them look like geniuses.

I did go to the BLS’s website and their chart #2 on the attached link actually validated what my eyeballs have witnessed over the past 20 years. I couldn't find the source data that the office of the speaker referenced, but this is not to say it isn't there. It is a pretty big website.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils87.pdf

my point is the dept of labor keeps track of the overall unemployment rate. why would they politicize it? it says the rate is double digits. anecdotally i can honestly say i do not see that. i am a young professional and know many many young professionals and their social circles. the only people that are unemployed are the ones that come in my office everyday and are accepting unemployment benefits. and in my office that is about 3%. does that mean that the numbers are actually 3%? no, because it does not reflect the national picture. the dept of labor keeps track of that. so are you saying you do not trust the department that has been saying what the unemployment rate is these last few years?? if it were political why would we hear every weekd the unemployment claims dropped, only to increase the next week? it is cyclical, and why would they politicize something like that? esp when it makes obama look ineffective at times?? that line of thinking baffles me...

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yes but the chart in question is from the us dept of labor statistics...

Always trust the gov't right? That's what you've taught me.

And it still includes what % of temporary jobs...stimulus $ jobs, etc. You cannot simply compare 2 time frames without the context. And I never said it isn't a real trend for the long haul, though I do question it, what I said was it would be interesting to see if it held or dropped off when the $ is all gone.

i will trust my department of labor statistics over any opinion of anybody on here that is for sure. did you look into the methodology of that report and that chart. doubt it...

care to address my point about how the filibuster contributed to nothing getting done, or is that truth an inconvenience for your side of the argument?

I'm kinda unclear as to why you are always such a combative person.

Dems had control of all 3, regardless of a filabuster, they had the power and the opportunity. NOw with a repub. lead House, they need to compromise and come up with solutions, otherwise we are all no better off and I think they will deliver a second term to Obama. Actualyl, I really like having the setup the way it is now, though I would prefer a Repub Senate as well. I'd like to see if Obama is able to work with the Repubs to get things done. Part of why I voted for him was I thought he might be able to promote compromise...that hasn't happened. And the Repubs are not the only ones to blame here. Obama has continued the disturbing trend of labeling people you don't agree with as enemies.

At any rate, the next 2 years should be pretty interesting.

Threads like this are pretty fucking depressing.
Shitty attitudes on both sides, from the thread title on....
I agree with whomever said that there are no winners or losers in elections anymore. Our job is to be critical of all politicians. Sitting here and childishly saying "you did it so so can I" is fucking ridiculous.

I just wish there was a way to unite the people against BOTH parties and stop the partisan bickering. Throwing blame back and forth every two years is getting the world nowhere, and both sides are guilty.

inmytree wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

I just wish there was a way to unite the people against BOTH parties and stop the partisan bickering. Throwing blame back and forth every two years is getting the world nowhere, and both sides are guilty.

I don't disagree, my friend...

I wish that to, however, I'm playing the current game that's being played as I don't see that wish coming true anytime soon...

You don't wish very hard if you're perpetuating the 'current game'....
What's that saying? 'If you're not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem' ...or how about 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'....
I prefer those to 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em'

inmytree wrote:

people stood and shouted that they knew the best route...I'm simply asking them shut up and do it...why is that so bad...?

i agree with this statement.

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i will trust my department of labor statistics over any opinion of anybody on here that is for sure. did you look into the methodology of that report and that chart. doubt it...

care to address my point about how the filibuster contributed to nothing getting done, or is that truth an inconvenience for your side of the argument?

I'm kinda unclear as to why you are always such a combative person.

Dems had control of all 3, regardless of a filabuster, they had the power and the opportunity. NOw with a repub. lead House, they need to compromise and come up with solutions, otherwise we are all no better off and I think they will deliver a second term to Obama. Actualyl, I really like having the setup the way it is now, though I would prefer a Repub Senate as well. I'd like to see if Obama is able to work with the Repubs to get things done. Part of why I voted for him was I thought he might be able to promote compromise...that hasn't happened. And the Repubs are not the only ones to blame here. Obama has continued the disturbing trend of labeling people you don't agree with as enemies.

At any rate, the next 2 years should be pretty interesting.

i am not combative, i am only trying to tell you that the reason things did not get done in the senate is because of the grand obstructionist party filibustering every piece of legislation. do you know what that means? that made the dems have to come up with 60 or more votes to break the filibuster, which was never going to happen. so it was easy for the gop to block every piece of legislation by invoking the filibuster and killing any debate and any votes because the dems did not have a filibusterproof majority. and this last senate session had a record number of filibusters from the gop. THAT is THE reason nothing substantive was passed in the senate. blocking things like that is the ultimate dick move because it kills debate and makes it impossible to ever move anything forward if it takes 60 votes. this is civics 101 class here. you say maybe the dems are willing to compromise??? ha ha ha...they compromised more than enough on the health care bill and still met nearly unanimous opposition. it is the gop that needs to learn to compromise.

now to the house, shut up and fix it....

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i will trust my department of labor statistics over any opinion of anybody on here that is for sure. did you look into the methodology of that report and that chart. doubt it...

care to address my point about how the filibuster contributed to nothing getting done, or is that truth an inconvenience for your side of the argument?

I'm kinda unclear as to why you are always such a combative person.

Dems had control of all 3, regardless of a filabuster, they had the power and the opportunity. NOw with a repub. lead House, they need to compromise and come up with solutions, otherwise we are all no better off and I think they will deliver a second term to Obama. Actualyl, I really like having the setup the way it is now, though I would prefer a Repub Senate as well. I'd like to see if Obama is able to work with the Repubs to get things done. Part of why I voted for him was I thought he might be able to promote compromise...that hasn't happened. And the Repubs are not the only ones to blame here. Obama has continued the disturbing trend of labeling people you don't agree with as enemies.

At any rate, the next 2 years should be pretty interesting.

i am not combative, i am only trying to tell you that the reason things did not get done in the senate is because of the grand obstructionist party filibustering every piece of legislation. do you know what that means? that made the dems have to come up with 60 or more votes to break the filibuster, which was never going to happen. so it was easy for the gop to block every piece of legislation by invoking the filibuster and killing any debate and any votes because the dems did not have a filibusterproof majority. and this last senate session had a record number of filibusters from the gop. THAT is THE reason nothing substantive was passed in the senate. blocking things like that is the ultimate dick move because it kills debate and makes it impossible to ever move anything forward if it takes 60 votes. this is civics 101 class here. you say maybe the dems are willing to compromise??? ha ha ha...they compromised more than enough on the health care bill and still met nearly unanimous opposition. it is the gop that needs to learn to compromise.

now to the house, shut up and fix it....

Combative and patronizing...thanks for the lesson teach.

One question, if the Dems could get things done owning both houses and the presidency, why are you holding the repub accountable for getting things done now that they control the House only? Seems a bit silly.

Jason P wrote:

For the most part, I avoid trusting charts and graphs unless they are done by neutral 3rd parties and they provide the conditions for which the data was collected.

My employment chart is in my brain and memory. Good times in the 90's. Bad times during dot.com bust and 9/11 until 2003. Average to good times through 2006. Bad times from 2007 to current time. Charts can be made to justify anything but I'll let my eyeballs figure this out. Of course, my analysis is subjective of my travels through the West Coast and the Midwest and the hiring patterns of the businesses I've worked for.

And which party was in control for most of the 90s?