State of the Union

[delldude]

I was so moved by the Presidents speech tonight......I am ready to see change in this country's direction.

I am fully supporting and endorsing Barack Obama.

I fully and wholeheartedly believe America is deserving of four more years of Barack Hussein Obama. God bless him.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I was so moved by the Presidents speech tonight......I am ready to see change in this country's direction.

I am fully supporting and endorsing Barack Obama.

I fully and wholeheartedly believe America is deserving of four more years of Barack Hussein Obama. God bless him.

I'm assuming that the back bench junior Senator from IL posing as President spewed more Manure in an hour then is spread on an acre of Iowa farmland all year?

When I see his image on TV I change the Channel.

 

[delldude]

He has now joined the Tea Party.

 

[xUT]

 

[delldude]

 

[xUT]

I was so moved by the Presidents speech tonight......I am ready to see change in this country's direction.

I am fully supporting and endorsing Barack Obama.

I fully and wholeheartedly believe America is deserving of four more years of Barack Hussein Obama. God bless him.

Good to see you finally capitulated comrade.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Seriously Rand what did you expect? We've been rule for the last 11 Yrs. by Dumb & Dumber!

 

[Dog Wonder]

I thought Rand Paul was in detention.

Writing 100 times.

'I will not be a Drama Queen.'

 

[tech2101]

nearly half of all persons under 30 did not go to work today

From Mitch Daniels in the rebuttal to the SOTU speech last night.

Does that include the toddlers, and maybe the teenagers that Newt wants to make Janitors?

 

[tech2101]

Mitch Daniels - Pants on Fire:

"Nearly half of all persons under 30 did not go to work today."

There’s no single category for "under 30," and BLS doesn’t calculate data on those below the age of 16, but we were able to put together an "under 30" category by merging four others: 16 to 17; 18 to 19; 20 to 24; and 25 to 29. This also allowed us to compare statistics for those separate groups.

The purest comparison we did -- one that seems to track Daniels’ statement most closely -- is to divide the number of people employed by the total number of persons in that age group. This statistic is known as the "employment to population ratio." We then flipped this ratio around to mirror how Daniels phrased it -- the total of persons not working divided by total population in that age group.

For December 2011, the most recent month available, we found that 44.4 percent of the 16-to-29 age group was not employed. So, Daniels is in the ballpark.

But there’s a problem: This is a ridiculous statistic to use. It includes Americans aged 16 to 18 (who are supposed to be in high school) and those 18 to 22 (many of whom are in college). If you leave high schoolers out of the equation and look only at ages 18 to 29, then the percentage who are not working declines to 37.5 percent. If you look only at ages 25 to 29, an age when most people are out of school altogether, it declines further, to 27.1 percent.

But even this is beside the point if you are trying to craft a credible statistic.

A more appropriate measure for Daniels would have been the tried-and-true unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate takes the number of unemployed people and divides it by those who are "in the labor force," which means that they are either employed or are jobless but looking for work. This measurement ignores people who are not seeking work, such as students or individuals who are raising children full-time or are unable to work for whatever reason.

These statistics offer a significantly different picture. In the broadest age range -- 16 to 29 -- the unemployment rate is 13.6 percent. For those between 18 and 29, it’s 12.9 percent. For those between 20 and 29, it’s 11.9 percent. And for those between 25 and 29, it’s 9.7 percent.

None of these measures gets Daniels any higher than 13.6 percent of the population -- far lower than the nearly 50 percent figure he cited.

Our ruling

We suppose in a narrow sense, Daniels has a point that "nearly half of all persons under 30 did not go to work today." But that’s because the number includes many people who have no desire to work -- for instance, full-time high school or college students, stay-at-home parents or others who are unable to work.

We can understand the concern about the nation’s current high level of unemployment, particularly among youth. Americans age 16 to 19 have an unemployment rate of 23.1 percent, and those who are 20 to 24 have a rate of 14.4 percent -- both well above the 8.5 percent for all age groups, which is itself elevated from historical averages.

Still, the statistic Daniels chose to document this one is a wildly misleading one. We rate it Pants on Fire.

Link

 

[xUT]

Clearly we need a State of the Union rebuttal thread.
I don't know who is for or against...
dell is for and tech is against, that solar flare might have changed planetary polarity...

 

[SparrowHawk]

Mitch Daniels - Pants on Fire:

"Nearly half of all persons under 30 did not go to work today."




Link

Hmmmmm........ "Nearly" is an interesting word. If I was "nearly Arrested" does that mean I got pulled over? I traffic ticket? I guess it's kind of like how you define "is"?

 

[tech2101]

Clearly we need a State of the Union rebuttal thread.
I don't know who is for or against...
dell is for and tech is against, that solar flare might have changed planetary polarity...

Rebuttal is a great word.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Credit is due to Barry Levinson, the famed Academy Award winning director, screenwriter, and producer who created and first published this two months ago in the Huffington Post. Enjoy! I think it safe to say that the Huffington Post and Mr Levinson are NOT ardent supporters of Dr Ron Paul or any Republican for that matter.

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work, can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work...
Those who are out of work stopped looking.
They gave up.
And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

So now you know why Obama's unemployment figures are improving, and you should understand the State of the Union.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Or maybe more peolpe are finding jobs.