Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: two things.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: two things. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 11:25:37 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 11:56:44 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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)



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)



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!

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 12:00:18 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 12:05:55 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 1:32:55 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 9/19/2013 1:36:31 PM >

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 1:41:23 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 2:06:32 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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!


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 2:10:32 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 9/19/2013 2:39:19 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 4:19:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 6:05:19 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 10:05:43 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 10:06:52 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: two things. - 9/19/2013 10:10:17 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: two things. - 9/20/2013 12:20:37 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: two things. - 9/20/2013 5:33:24 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: two things. - 9/20/2013 5:44:39 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: two things. - 9/20/2013 5:48:52 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: two things. - 9/20/2013 5:49:38 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		After the fact.

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

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: two things. - 9/20/2013 5:54:35 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: two things. - 9/20/2013 6:08:03 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Nope, but we didn't have a dime left in the checkbook.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: two things. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094