So the inflection point is right when Obama takes office.... seems like a pretty damn good showing by Obama.

12/15/2011 10:26:54 AM

Did you mean a good showing by Romney?

12/15/2011 12:17:24 PM

Quote :

"So the inflection point is right when Obama takes office.... seems like a pretty damn good showing by Obama."

But don't you see it wasn't until after he took office that unemployment reached its highest!!!

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 12:53:49 PM

Quote :

"All it did was add about 3.3 million jobs"

maybe. if you assume that zero jobs would have been created without it, a huge fucking assumption to begin with, and you use the administration's funny numbers to calculate a "created" job.

12/15/2011 4:39:41 PM

Quote :

"maybe. if you assume that zero jobs would have been created without it, a huge fucking assumption to begin with, "

Nope that assumption is not being made at all. These are jobs directly attributable to stimulus affects, not just "jobs that were created while the stimulus was in effect"

Quote :

"and you use the administration's funny numbers to calculate a "created" job."

Nope, just using the CBO's numbers. Do you have numbers burro? Aside from just repeating "zero" over and over again with nothing to back it up?

12/20/2011 2:55:31 PM

How did this story get on fox news? +1

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/founder-internet-fears-unprecedented-web-censorship-from-sopa/

12/20/2011 5:05:47 PM

Quote :

"Nope, just using the CBO's numbers."

so, it's the same thing, then. funny numbers.

Quote :

"These are jobs directly attributable to stimulus affects, not just "jobs that were created while the stimulus was in effect""

and how do you attribute that? right: x dollars spent = y jobs created. an absurd statistic if I've ever seen one.

12/20/2011 5:14:28 PM

1/19/2012 9:47:50 AM

1/19/2012 3:03:25 PM

Quote :

"so, it's the same thing, then. funny numbers."

Lol and you have no numbers. Please point me to a more trusted source (awaiting heritage.org link)

Quote :

"and how do you attribute that? right: x dollars spent = y jobs created. an absurd statistic if I've ever seen one."

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

You can go over the actual projects and allocations yourself you stupid shit. They don't just throw the money in a big old pot and have people come up and take a handful.

1/20/2012 9:43:37 AM

Quote :

"Lol and you have no numbers."

THEY have no numbers, that's the point. Their numbers are contrived and assume that X dollars spent "creates" Y jobs. That's the most bogus way to calculate job numbers ever, except for maybe throwing a dart at a bulletin board with numbers on it.

Quote :

"You can go over the actual projects and allocations yourself you stupid shit."

and that helps, how? The job "creation" numbers are still figured exactly as I said: X dollars = Y jobs. Whether they do it by project or on the aggregate, the result is the same.

1/20/2012 10:05:30 AM

Quote :

"The Supreme Court will not intervene in a controversy over Christian prayers delivered before commission meetings in Forsyth County, North Carolina."

1/20/2012 7:22:18 PM

http://topstories.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17224&external=1262338.proteus.fma

That one was from a few weeks ago. An article about a law that had nothing to do with illegal immigration mentions it the second paragraph.

Scapegoating illegals for $400 Alex.

1/20/2012 7:36:03 PM

1/25/2012 7:44:44 AM

I love how shadowstats.com takes data directly from bls.gov and republishes it with their watermark and commentary as though they're letting big secrets out to the chagrin of those sneaky politicians ahaha

[Edited on January 25, 2012 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2012 12:10:41 PM

needs more Palin

1/28/2012 9:41:01 PM

The BLS still publishes their old algorithms for CPI? Didn't know that.

1/29/2012 11:07:15 AM

Say what Son?

1/30/2012 4:18:26 PM

Yes, there's an entire site within bls.gov just for the CPI.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Included on the site is the history of the CPI algorithm:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf

And, the bls's unemployment section includes all the various unemployment measures beyond U-3

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm


Seriously, the bls site is huge and extensive and covers way more than people assume it does. Maybe .gov domains are just assumed to be boring? I don't know. Either way, shadowstats basically makes their ad sales by presenting the same data but with a phoney "You're not supposed to see this..." motif to make paranoiacs feel like they're getting away with something.


[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2012 10:08:54 AM

2/3/2012 12:47:16 PM

the facts:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/83-this-was-the-best-jobs-report-since-the-great-recession/252499/

attempting to turn a diamond into a turd:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/03/bad-news-behind-january-jobs-report/

2/3/2012 2:05:10 PM

looks like they are going all in on this contraception deal

2/14/2012 12:18:43 AM

they should. It's repugnant that the gov't should force ANYONE to pay for something that is against their religious beliefs. this is Constitution 101.

2/14/2012 4:33:14 PM

so if my boss is a Christian Scientist he shouldn't provide health insurance at all?

2/14/2012 5:11:47 PM

^ Just watched The Daily Show?

2/14/2012 5:20:11 PM

no, it's a point that has been made multiple times over the past week

2/14/2012 5:22:33 PM

if your boss owns the business, no, he shouldn't be forced to pay for health insurance, assuming it's against his religious beliefs. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's the 1st Amendment. Piss on it at your own peril

2/14/2012 6:25:19 PM

A question for the ages: why the fuck are employers paying for health insurance at all? Why aren't they paying rent and mortgages? Why not groceries too? Would we be surprised if the government suddenly allowed employers to provide those goods/services on a tax free basis, and consequently, the employees demonstrated very little thrift while shopping, driving up the cost as a result?

These are questions that, if asked, expose the absurdity of our current model. If you have no interest in long-term solutions and would rather apply short-term, temporary band aids, these questions have no value.

2/14/2012 6:42:57 PM

that, 2. I was about to point out how this "controversy" completely disappears in its current form if health insurance weren't tied to employment

2/14/2012 6:47:23 PM

So you really think the answer to this problem is taking away everyone's healthcare? Brilliant fucking plan. Then the companies can continue to pay their workers less money AND not have to pay for their benefits even though corporations are making as much money as ever. Not to mention the fact that employer provided health care helps to lock in prices on a rapidly inflating commodity saving a person even more money.

Do you guys actually think about the stuff you say or do you just say it? Seriously, sometimes I can't believe anything you guys say has been given any rational thought.

2/14/2012 10:56:01 PM

ITT, IMStoned thinks that there will be no healthcare if we divorce health INSURANCE from employment. brilliant. He thinks that workers won't demand more in salary to pay for their own health insurance once we take away the perverse incentive employers have to pay their workers less in exchange for a service that is not tailored to their employees individual needs. fucking brilliant

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 9:53:51 AM

As long as there's a labor surplus, workers can't really "demand" much of anything. Average wages haven't risen since the 60's. And seriously, do you think the insurance companies want to deal with you individually? The employment = health insurance scheme works awesome for both business and insurers. It makes job applicants more desperate for a job offer, and it rakes in customers for the insurance companies with very little effort on their part. Best part is that consumers get the illusion of choice by having a few plans to choose from that are both tailored to fit the interests of the employer and insurer.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 10:07:17 AM

Quote :

" It makes job applicants more desperate for a job offer"

you took your job b/c you were desperate for insurance? shit. do you go to the doctor daily? get some cobra during the down time.

i'm trying to honestly help your desperate situation that you are trying to claim we should all be forced to cover. i'm sorry for your misfortunes.

2/15/2012 10:51:10 AM

^^ so, you agree, the current system sucks for the worker. yet your solution is to continue it. got it

2/15/2012 12:48:02 PM

^welcome to liberalism....

1. take shitty idea X.
2. X is a complete failure and society as a whole basically 'deals with it' if not outright rejects it
3. campaign and try as hard as possible to get X funded and backed permanently by the federal govt
4. tax and fine people money for not investing in X or make them use an expensive alternative not backed by the govt


pure liberal societies are rampant with companies like time warner cable and the post office and chevrolet... shitty companies with no competition sometimes running at huge losses, not benefiting really anybody or making their life much 'better' than the alternatives

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ,]

2/15/2012 12:56:28 PM

What the fuck are you talking about? Liberals don't want to continue the employer provided health insurance scheme any more than conservatives. Our entire goddamn point is that the current model is horrible, unsustainable, and needs to be reformed around single payer.

2/15/2012 1:03:33 PM

awwww shit, here comes shrike


^ hahahaha. their whole idea is "it's bad to have it funded by a small number of organizations. so let's only have one organization run the whole damned show. that'll be fucking awesome!"

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 1:04:14 PM

^^
rule #1 of liberalism... always defend new taxes and social programs

rule #2 of liberalism... when you are completely lost and clueless about how to defend your new tax and social programs > pretend everybody 'kind of agrees' with you on the premise that it isn't a new forced tax and that a govt unsustainable program is 'better' than the alternative

2/15/2012 1:09:21 PM

Quote :

"^^ so, you agree, the current system sucks for the worker. yet your solution is to continue it. got it"

I'm trying to point out to you morons that the government isn't responsible for the employer-provided insurance system, the free market is because both insurers and businesses love it. You dudes are seriously thick.

Quote :

"you took your job b/c you were desperate for insurance? shit. do you go to the doctor daily? get some cobra during the down time."

First, COBRA is short term and only available under specific conditions, and is dependent also on your last employers insurance programs. I would tell you to stop talking about things you know nothing about but that would require you to sew your lips shut forever.

Quote :

"i'm trying to honestly help your desperate situation that you are trying to claim we should all be forced to cover. i'm sorry for your misfortunes."

I must have really gotten to you with this angle for you to be trying to bandy it back. ahaha

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 3:24:21 PM

Quote :

"I'm trying to point out to you morons that the government isn't responsible for the employer-provided insurance system, the free market is because both insurers and businesses love it. You dudes are seriously thick. "

yes. the gov't giving a massive tax-credit to companies for paying for health-insurance does nothing to inspire companies to pay part of their employees' health-insurance. And the rise in companies funding their employees' health-insurance only coincidentally occurred after the gov't started giving out the tax-credit for companies that help fund their employees' health-insurance. this is what you are arguing.

2/15/2012 4:00:16 PM

Quote :

"I'm trying to point out to you morons that the government isn't responsible for the employer-provided insurance system, the free market is because both insurers and businesses love it. You dudes are seriously thick. "

Oh yeah?

Quote :

"Offering insurance policies to employee groups not only benefited insurers, but also benefited employers. During World War II, wage and price controls prevented employers from using wages to compete for scarce labor. Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers."

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

It is mutually beneficial to employers (reduces taxes) and insurance companies (increases enrollment), but it was encouraged and legalized by the government. I would prefer it to be outlawed by the government and make each household purchase their own insurance.

The entire article is an interesting read.

2/15/2012 4:04:36 PM

it's like the dude hates facts, lol

I reject your reality and substitute my own

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 4:05:11 PM

Are you talking about the small business tax credit? Or one for your specific state? Employer-healthcare stuff is generally regulated mostly by states, see http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/employer-and-individual-tax-incentives-to-offer-he.aspx

2/15/2012 4:08:15 PM

keep flailing against facts, man. i mean, what part of this doesn't sound like a federal tax-credit of some sort for companies that provide health insurance (from the above link)

Quote :

"Offering insurance policies to employee groups not only benefited insurers, but also benefited employers. During World War II, wage and price controls prevented employers from using wages to compete for scarce labor. Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term "wages" included pension and insurance benefits. Therefore, when negotiating for wages, the union was allowed to negotiate benefit packages on behalf of workers as well. This ruling, affirmed later by the U.S. Supreme Court, further reinforced the employment-based system.5 Perhaps the most influential aspect of government intervention that shaped the employer-based system of health insurance was the tax treatment of employer-provided contributions to employee health insurance plans. First, employers did not have to pay payroll tax on their contributions to employee health plans. Further, under certain circumstances, employees did not have to pay income tax on their employer's contributions to their health insurance plans. The first such exclusion occurred under an administrative ruling handed down in 1943 which stated that payments made by the employer directly to commercial insurance companies for group medical and hospitalization premiums of employees were not taxable as employee income (Yale Law Journal, 1954, pp. 222-247). While this particular ruling was highly restrictive and limited in its applicability, it was codified and extended in 1954. Under the 1954 Internal Revenue Code (IRC), employer contributions to employee health plans were exempt from employee taxable income. As a result of this tax-advantaged form of compensation, the demand for health insurance further increased throughout the 1950s (Thomasson 2003)."

2/15/2012 4:09:51 PM

they are really proud of themselves over this Media Matters thing, whatever it is

2/27/2012 3:42:32 PM

America's economic recovery is good news, unless you work for a media organization whose job it is to make sure Barack Obama doesn't get re-elected.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-28-2012/i-can-t-believe-it-got-better-

3/1/2012 12:28:34 AM

3/6/2012 10:05:50 AM

He did it for the lulz

3/6/2012 10:14:35 AM

he got ratted out by another anonymous member that was mad they werent just attacking scientology any more.

i bet they all end up turning each other in.

3/8/2012 9:41:06 AM

Quote :

"A question for the ages: why the fuck are employers paying for health insurance at all?"

it's a perk or "benefit" just like 401k matching and ISPP. employers aren't mandated to provide insurance, but it helps them hire top talent. it's more on an incentive then anything.

3/8/2012 3:30:42 PM