The Pebble In My Hand

It seems there’s a never ending quest for the Left to take the pebble in my hand.

I posted “Has The Left Invented A New Math” two days ago in which I challenged the math of USAToday and the Left.

Today I got a comment back from SpudsMcKenzie:

Where do you get your numbers from?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate sits at 10%. Well, you got that right! But, they also list the number of unemployed at 15.8 million, not 7.2 million. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.

So let’s take a look at the math. If 15.8 million people are unemployed and the unemployment rate is 10% then this must mean that the total workforce is 158 million. A much more realistic number, if you ask me. So, 0.8% of 158 million is…wait for it… 1.264 million. Sounds like the math is right to me.

One question though. Why is this a big deal to you? The numbers are right and they make sense.

And when you reference material in your posts you really should stay away from conservative news sources. They are not trustworthy. Not to say liberal news sources are either. But if you do, you should probably try to find an alternative, non-conservative source of information to compare with. This will give you more credibility.

Now Spuds, a member of the left, thinks he’s got me. He even enlightens us with numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and announces it’s actually 15.8 million who are unemployed.

But this is what Spuds had hoped no one would see in the BLS link he provided:

In December, both the number of unemployed persons, at 15.3 million, and the unemployment rate,at 10.0 percent, were unchanged. At the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons was 7.7 million, and the unemployment rate was 5.0 percent.

Now let’s look past the fact that in 2007 both chambers of Congress were controlled by Democrats and Barack Obama was a member of Congress at that time. Let’s look past the fact that both chambers of Congress are still controlled by Democrats and that Barack Obama is now POTUS.

Spud’s comment is correct, however, it only proves that the Left has indeed invented a new math.

Before Obama became President, there were 7.7 million people unemployed and the unemployment rate was at 5%. Now economists say that Obama has saved an additional 1.2 million jobs because of his stimulus plan.

How can that be? Obama’s plan wasn’t in effect at the start of this recession in 2007. In fact, unemployment has increased by 7.6 million and the unemployment rate has doubled to 10%. So Obama’s using numbers from before the recession started? Even before he and the Democrats in Congress thought of, much less, implemented the “stimulus” plan? Giggle, snort, giggle.

But wait, there’s more Spuds. The link you provided from BLS also states:

The civilian labor force participation rate fell to 64.6% in December. The employment-population ratio declined to 58.2 %.

If jobs were saved as a result of Obama’s stimulus plan, then at the very least these rates would have remained the same.

But wait, there’s more Spuds. Obama’s own OMB Director provides us with the calculation of jobs saved:

if the project is being funded with stimulus dollars – even if the person worked at that company or organization before and will work the same place afterwards – that’s a stimulus job

I’ll go back to a question in my original post:

“If Obama saved a job that was never there to be saved, should we believe Obama ever saved it?”

So Spuds, allow me to let you in on a little secret. The post that you commented on is called a trap post. It’s a post which allows one to trap another and actually help the author of the post prove his point. You did a great job in helping me out. I can’t thank you enough.

When you can take the pebble from my hand grasshopper Spuds, you then can talk to me about credibility. Until then practice, my student, practice.

Share and Enjoy:

This entry was posted by Fleckman on January 27, 2010 at 11:48 am, and is filled under Politics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

Peter Fleckenstein

You fail to see my point? I feel sorry for you. Here's my point:

You can't measure any jobs saved because you can't calculate that number with any credibility at all. Not even the BLS calculates that number.

As for the CBO report? Well, you see for yourself what the CBO says exactly:

"However, adding up the reported numbersof jobs created or retained is not a comprehensive measure of ARRA’s effect on overall employment, or even of the effect of those provisions of ARRA for which recipients’reports are required."

How convenient of you to leave this out in your comment.

Now when your done ruining your credibility, let me know.

Until then you can talk all you want about the left wing nut jobs posting delusions and misrepresentations about what I've said.

Are you done yet?

SpudsMcKenzie

And I still fail to see your point. I don't understand your logic. Maybe it's your superior intelligence.

I see it simply as this.

The 50 economists polled said that without the stimulus the unemployment rate would be 10.8%. Since the current unemployment is 10%. This means 1.2 million jobs have been saved. I don't think it can be put any simpler. Your conservative mind is refusing your brain from comprehending simple math.

And if you don't believe the USA Today article, the CBO estimates that the number of unemployed would be anywhere between 800,000 to 2.4 million without the stimulus. Obama claimed 2 million in his SotU address, but like I said, he's a politician, don't take what he says as a literal truth, they will use numbers that look the best. IHS/Global Impact predicted the stimulus saved 1.25 million; Macroeconomics Advisers, 1 million; Moody's Economy.com, 1.6 million.

If the government alone was claiming that jobs were saved, of course I would be agreeing with you. But it seems that the consensus is that jobs were saved. So, I'm siding with them.

As for credibility, if I could prove who I voted for, I definitely would provide that information. But, I also do not claim credibility, I use SpudsMcKenzie as my screen name, after all. But I try to be as credible as possible in my information.

As for your credibility, search your name online.

SpudsMcKenzie

Wow. I didn't mean to get your panties in a wad. I wasn't aware I was out to get you. I was just responding to the flawed unemployment numbers. But, I'll try to respond.

You said: "Now Spuds, a member of the left, thinks he’s got me."
Response: 1) A member of the left? The last election I voted for 7 Republicans, 2 Libertarians, and 5 Democrats. I don't think that qualifies as left. A strongly believe no one should be fully left or fully right. If you are, you're more guilty of drinking the cool-aid than forming an opinion. I agree with some things on both sides. A disagree with some things on both sideds 2) I didn't know this was a game.

After this, I start to space out a little. You mention that the previous post was a trap post and that I helped you prove a point. Well, I'm sorry, but I fail to see your point. Even after reading it over and over. And I still fail to see how the previous post was a trap post. You stated that the math was wrong and I stated that the math was right. It still appears that way to me.

Keep in mind, I was also responding to the USA Today article, not to Obama's claims. I could care less what Obama or his administration, or congress have to claim. They're politicians. I go by what I read from reliable news sources. Rather it from the left (CNN), right (FOX), or middle (FactCheck, Politifact). I will not form an opinion from a sole source. I look at them all then form an opinion. And yes, I do read them all, it's amazing how far off from each other news sources can be. But anyway, I think I've gotten off track.

As I was saying, I fail to see the point you were making. So I'll skip to the final question.

“If Obama saved a job that was never there to be saved, should we believe Obama ever saved it?”

Again, lost me here. The USA Today article stated that economists believe that the unemployment rate would have been 10.8% without the stimulus. Which equates to 1.2 million jobs. So if you ask me: "Do you think the stimulus saved jobs?". Then, I would reply: "Absolutely". Did it save 1.2 million jobs. How the heck am I supposed to know? How can anyone really know? Take the data and guesses for what you will. I believe it helped. Did it help the middle class? Again, how would I know. I think it helped mainly education, police, and other such jobs more than manufacturing, construction, etc. but I don't have an opinion either way rather that was good or bad.

And, by the way, your credibility has already been tested and not by me.

Peter Fleckenstein

Spuds, How do we verify that you voted for The last election I voted for 7 Republicans, 2 Libertarians, and 5 Democrats. I mean you do talk about credibility so how do we verify what u stated is credible.

The USAToday article was one in which it was trying to justify that Obama had saved 1.2 million jobs. That is the same claim that Obama has made. That he's saved jobs.

If you look at my math I was using the numbers when Obama was in Congress and when he and the Democrats implemented the stimulus bill. I already knew the BLS numbers. You see the math was wrong because the USAToday article wasn't looking at how jobs were saved. They were basing it on Obama's calculations.

Let me see if I can help you using my final question:

“If Obama saved a job that was never there to be saved, should we believe Obama ever saved it?"

"Obama’s plan wasn’t in effect at the start of this recession in 2007. In fact, unemployment has increased by 7.6 million and the unemployment rate has doubled to 10%. So Obama’s using numbers from before the recession started? Even before he and the Democrats in Congress thought of, much less, implemented the “stimulus” plan?"

"if the project is being funded with stimulus dollars – even if the person worked at that company or organization before and will work the same place afterwards – that’s a stimulus job"

Now how do you say jobs were saved with stimulus dollars even if the person worked at that company or organization before and will work the same place afterwards?

I hope that cleared things up for you.

As for my credibility already being tested before you. Who was that exactly?

The Pebble In My Hand

Tweetin’

Blogroll