RE: two things. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 11:25:37 AM)

But it has been supported since time immemorial. One does not have to recite decided issues with opinions by talking heads every time that a truism is repeated.

Besides which, it has been supported, please see my post about the contractors letters.



DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 11:56:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
No citations needed, remember last shutdown and the contractor letters being sent out?
You don't think it will happen if the government shuts down? Already happening during sequestration.


Total Government employment 1/12 - 8/13)

[image]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/CES9000000001_350159_1379616288771.gif[/image]

Seasonally adjusted numbers, in the millions...

2013 employment...
January - 21.858
February - 21.871
March - 21.859
April - 21.870
May - 21.859
June - 21.837
July - 21.814 (preliminary)
August - 21.831 (preliminary)

Sequestration hit March 1st, right?

21.859M - 21.831M = 0.028M, or 28K fewer employees.

March 2012 to August 2012, the employment #'s were...
21.941M - 21.915M = 0.026m, or 26k fewer employees.

We lost approximately 2,000 more jobs after sequestration than we did the year previous without sequestration.

Total Private Employment (1/12 - 8/13)

[image]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/CES0500000001_350159_1379616288137.gif[/image]

2013 employment...
January - 112.981
February - 113.300
March - 113.454
April - 113.642
May - 113.829
June - 114.023
July - 114.150 (preliminary)
August - 114.302 (preliminary)

March - August 2013
113.454M - 114.302M = -0.848M, or 848k more jobs

That damn sequestration!



DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 12:00:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
But it has been supported since time immemorial. One does not have to recite decided issues with opinions by talking heads every time that a truism is repeated.
Besides which, it has been supported, please see my post about the contractors letters.


It has not been supported.

I don't understand how shutting down the government in 2013 leading to millions of people suddenly being out of work is supported "since time immemorial."

I agree that decided issues do not need to be cited. Thus, when you talk to yourself about decided issues, feel free to leave out the citations. But, for people who do not agree that the issue is decided, you might want to include citations.



mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 12:05:55 PM)

citations? those numbers do not include subcontractors. they would be in the private employment numbers.

sequestration was done in January, to be implemented in March, they padded the roles in the intervening two months in preparation.


And sequestration was a budget cut, not any other sort of cut, there really isnt any sequestration, because the nutsuckers down there pass interim appropriations, borrowing and spending, and it ends up i.e. in the fed and state attorneys offices, public defenders are let go and then rehired at more money as private subcontractors.




DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 1:32:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
citations? those numbers do not include subcontractors. they would be in the private employment numbers.
sequestration was done in January, to be implemented in March, they padded the roles in the intervening two months in preparation.
And sequestration was a budget cut, not any other sort of cut, there really isnt any sequestration, because the nutsuckers down there pass interim appropriations, borrowing and spending, and it ends up i.e. in the fed and state attorneys offices, public defenders are let go and then rehired at more money as private subcontractors.


They "padded the roles?!?" There was about 1k more government employees in March, compared to January. 12k fewer in March, compared to February.

I really wish those images would have come through. That's annoying.

If the government numbers dropped, but the people were rehired as contractors, then, there weren't any actual job losses, right?

ETA: IF there really isn't any sequestration, please explain Post#17:
    quote:

    No citations needed, remember last shutdown and the contractor letters being sent out?
    You don't think it will happen if the government shuts down? Already happening during sequestration.


How can it already be "happening during sequestration" when "there really isn't any sequestration?"

I think I now understand the accuracy of your dancing avatar.



mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 1:41:23 PM)

Compared to february-january and march about the same as january. (but an appropriation (borrow and spend) saved the contractors in the last debt ceiling fiasco).


If there were no job losses, or if there were, why wouldn't that show up in your questionable citations, and dont it look like private employment picked up?

I mean since we are talking innumeracy and fundamental misunderstanding.




DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 2:06:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Compared to february-january and march about the same as january. (but an appropriation (borrow and spend) saved the contractors in the last debt ceiling fiasco).
If there were no job losses, or if there were, why wouldn't that show up in your questionable citations, and dont it look like private employment picked up?
I mean since we are talking innumeracy and fundamental misunderstanding.


Ken made the claim that millions would lose their jobs. I asked for citations. You said it was already happening under sequestration.

I showed data points (I swear the graphs were there when I posted) from the BLS website. Look at the image URL's from the BLS site.

My whole point was that there weren't job losses outside of government, and even those losses may or may not have had anything to do with sequestration (your claim).

Even your specious claim that government employees turned into private sector employees doesn't explain the increase in jobs of 822k over the losses in government jobs.

Then, you go and claim there wasn't any sequestration anyway?!?

Dance away, MN! Dance away!



mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 2:10:32 PM)

And it is. People are losing their jobs under sequestration.

21871-21831 is 40k people and that is fed only. And that is only govt employees. So jobs are being shed. Shut it down altogether.

Who aint gonna collect a paycheck? Boener or his staff secretary? You tell me.

quote:


and even those losses may or may not have had anything to do with sequestration (your claim).


Not my claim, again, same as the last horseshit you pulled unless it was in the paragraph where you claimed to be a convicted child molester.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/sequestration-jobs_n_2908924.html



DomKen -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 4:19:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Several million people suddenly out of work won't affect the economy? Since when?

Any support for your claim of "several million people suddenly out of work?" And, which one of the two conditions were you making that claim about?

If the government shuts down that will put several million people out of work directly and indirectly.


So, no. No citations. Got it.


Do you think there are no federal government employees? Do you not understand if a large group of people become unemployed the reduction in spending will result in other job losses?



cloudboy -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 6:05:19 PM)


It shows republicans don't respect democracy and rule of law. It also shows their unwillingness to address the pressing healthcare issues of the USA.

I kind of see it as a terrorist move. If they can't get what they want, they'll try to crash the country.



DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 10:05:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
And it is. People are losing their jobs under sequestration.
21871-21831 is 40k people and that is fed only. And that is only govt employees. So jobs are being shed. Shut it down altogether.


That is Government, not just Federal. I didn't separate the different levels of government.

quote:

Who aint gonna collect a paycheck? Boener or his staff secretary? You tell me.
quote:

and even those losses may or may not have had anything to do with sequestration (your claim).

Not my claim, again, same as the last horseshit you pulled unless it was in the paragraph where you claimed to be a convicted child molester.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/sequestration-jobs_n_2908924.html


Actually, you have said they were going to lose their jobs from sequestration. I showed that 28k jobs were lost from March to August, this year. Last year, that same time frame showed 26k in job losses. With sequestration, we lost 2k more jobs than we did without sequestration. Makes it seem like sequestration isn't the causal factor behind those 28k jobs lost.

You also claimed there really isn't any sequestration.

Which is it, MN? Is there sequestration, or not?

How many jobs were lost due to sequestration?




DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 10:06:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Several million people suddenly out of work won't affect the economy? Since when?

Any support for your claim of "several million people suddenly out of work?" And, which one of the two conditions were you making that claim about?

If the government shuts down that will put several million people out of work directly and indirectly.

So, no. No citations. Got it.

Do you think there are no federal government employees? Do you not understand if a large group of people become unemployed the reduction in spending will result in other job losses?


So, no citations in support of your claim, then. Got it.



DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/19/2013 10:10:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
It shows republicans don't respect democracy and rule of law. It also shows their unwillingness to address the pressing healthcare issues of the USA.
I kind of see it as a terrorist move. If they can't get what they want, they'll try to crash the country.


And, this is exactly the problem. The "rule of law?" Really? Isn't the rules of the US Government that spending bills begin in the House and that the House "holds the purse strings?" In essence, if the House doesn't want to fund legislation, they can work towards defunding it. It's a process.

The Democrats in the Senate blocking attempts by the Republicans in the House without voting on it or even being willing to compromise makes crashing the country also on their hands. It's not just the Republicans, or just the Democrats. It's both parties and their hyper-partisanship.



DomKen -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 12:20:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Several million people suddenly out of work won't affect the economy? Since when?

Any support for your claim of "several million people suddenly out of work?" And, which one of the two conditions were you making that claim about?

If the government shuts down that will put several million people out of work directly and indirectly.

So, no. No citations. Got it.

Do you think there are no federal government employees? Do you not understand if a large group of people become unemployed the reduction in spending will result in other job losses?


So, no citations in support of your claim, then. Got it.


http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/
2.7 million federal civilian employees. A government shutdown would result in most of those, some would stay on the job as essential to national security, being out of work.

Now what the fuck are you trying to claim?



DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 5:33:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Several million people suddenly out of work won't affect the economy? Since when?

Any support for your claim of "several million people suddenly out of work?" And, which one of the two conditions were you making that claim about?

If the government shuts down that will put several million people out of work directly and indirectly.

So, no. No citations. Got it.

Do you think there are no federal government employees? Do you not understand if a large group of people become unemployed the reduction in spending will result in other job losses?

So, no citations in support of your claim, then. Got it.

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/
2.7 million federal civilian employees. A government shutdown would result in most of those, some would stay on the job as essential to national security, being out of work.
Now what the fuck are you trying to claim?


How long would they be out of work? How many would actually be out of work? A two-week shutdown would impact the economy long term, how?





mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 5:44:39 AM)

Well, it would make it more expensive to borrow, because they will downgrade our credit rating, just like last time. That's the easiest to spot.



DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 5:48:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well, it would make it more expensive to borrow, because they will downgrade our credit rating, just like last time. That's the easiest to spot.


Yep. That they did. They did so, even though the debt ceiling was raised.



mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 5:49:38 AM)

After the fact.

Late on payments is late on payments, and we have payments due every nanosecond.



DesideriScuri -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 5:54:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
After the fact.
Late on payments is late on payments, and we have payments due every nanosecond.


Were we actually late on payments, though?



mnottertail -> RE: two things. (9/20/2013 6:08:03 AM)

Nope, but we didn't have a dime left in the checkbook.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875