<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Delusions of Pelosi</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:48:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Fleckenstein</title>
		<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-1856</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Fleckenstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.flecksoflife.com/?p=841#comment-1856</guid>
		<description>I have brought hard data to the discussion. My statement remains factual and correct:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Under the Democrats, America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You can&#039;t disprove it because I&#039;ve brought hard data to back it up and because it&#039;s true.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So when the Left &amp; Pelosi trots out their Bush Derangement Syndrome, I&#039;m gonna call them on it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The plain fact is that unemployment is bad; people are still losing jobs; people are falling off the unemployment rolls because they&#039;ve exhausted their benefits.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The point is - Democrats have done nothing to create jobs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have brought hard data to the discussion. My statement remains factual and correct:</p>
<p>&#8220;Under the Democrats, America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years&#8221;</p>
<p>You can&#39;t disprove it because I&#39;ve brought hard data to back it up and because it&#39;s true.</p>
<p>So when the Left &#038; Pelosi trots out their Bush Derangement Syndrome, I&#39;m gonna call them on it.</p>
<p>The plain fact is that unemployment is bad; people are still losing jobs; people are falling off the unemployment rolls because they&#39;ve exhausted their benefits.</p>
<p>The point is &#8211; Democrats have done nothing to create jobs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor</title>
		<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-1855</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:36:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.flecksoflife.com/?p=841#comment-1855</guid>
		<description>Pete,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In my first post, I used employment level numbers: the same ones that everyone else is using. &quot;Don&#039;t use those&quot;, you replied: The real story is in the unemployment numbers. And stop using the Pelosi chart.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So I showed you the unemployment levels: the same ones that everyone else is using. &quot;Don&#039;t use those&quot;, you replied: The real story is in the unadjusted numbers, not the seasonally-adjusted ones. And stop using the Pelosi chart.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So I showed you the unadjusted employment levels. &quot;Don&#039;t use those&quot;, you replied. And stop using the Pelosi chart.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Who&#039;s the one repeating themselves?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The plain fact is that unemployment is bad, but improving. The plain fact is that we&#039;ve seen job losses in the past, under both Republican and Democratic Administrations. The plain fact is that George W. Bush was President froom 2001-2008.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You get the last word: it&#039;s your blog. But please, bring hard data to the discussion.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And stop using the Pelosi chart :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete,</p>
<p>In my first post, I used employment level numbers: the same ones that everyone else is using. &#8220;Don&#39;t use those&#8221;, you replied: The real story is in the unemployment numbers. And stop using the Pelosi chart.</p>
<p>So I showed you the unemployment levels: the same ones that everyone else is using. &#8220;Don&#39;t use those&#8221;, you replied: The real story is in the unadjusted numbers, not the seasonally-adjusted ones. And stop using the Pelosi chart.</p>
<p>So I showed you the unadjusted employment levels. &#8220;Don&#39;t use those&#8221;, you replied. And stop using the Pelosi chart.</p>
<p>Who&#39;s the one repeating themselves?</p>
<p>The plain fact is that unemployment is bad, but improving. The plain fact is that we&#39;ve seen job losses in the past, under both Republican and Democratic Administrations. The plain fact is that George W. Bush was President froom 2001-2008.</p>
<p>You get the last word: it&#39;s your blog. But please, bring hard data to the discussion.</p>
<p>And stop using the Pelosi chart <img src='http://blog.flecksoflife.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Fleckenstein</title>
		<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-1854</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Fleckenstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.flecksoflife.com/?p=841#comment-1854</guid>
		<description>Victor,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You&#039;ve been repeating yourself in every comment. You can stop now.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My post remains correct. You cannot disprove it. My statement remains correct:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Under the Democrats, America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Now please don&#039;t repeat again what you&#039;ve repeated the past three posts. You&#039;ve had your say and that&#039;s enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Victor,</p>
<p>You&#39;ve been repeating yourself in every comment. You can stop now.</p>
<p>My post remains correct. You cannot disprove it. My statement remains correct:</p>
<p>&#8220;Under the Democrats, America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years&#8221;</p>
<p>Now please don&#39;t repeat again what you&#39;ve repeated the past three posts. You&#39;ve had your say and that&#39;s enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor</title>
		<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-1476</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:36:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.flecksoflife.com/?p=841#comment-1476</guid>
		<description>Three points:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;1. LNS13000000 &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; the unemployment level. When you look at LNU, you see the unadjusted numbers instead of the seasonally adjusted figures. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bls.gov/cps/seasfaq.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Quoting from the BLS&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;As a general rule, the monthly employment and unemployment numbers reported in the news are seasonally adjusted data. Seasonally adjusted data are useful when comparing several months of data.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;2. Here&#039;s LNU since 1948:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&amp;series_id=LNU03000000&amp;years_option=all_years&amp;periods_option=specific_periods&amp;periods=Annual+Data&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputSer...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Every time you see the chart move up, that&#039;s a net job loss. There are about 10 different instances of the chart moving up.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;3. Even the piece in The Atlantic that you&#039;ve linked to uses the Pelosi chart: it&#039;s Chart 2 in the article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three points:</p>
<p>1. LNS13000000 <em>is</em> the unemployment level. When you look at LNU, you see the unadjusted numbers instead of the seasonally adjusted figures. <a href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/seasfaq.htm" rel="nofollow">Quoting from the BLS</a>: &#8220;As a general rule, the monthly employment and unemployment numbers reported in the news are seasonally adjusted data. Seasonally adjusted data are useful when comparing several months of data.&#8221;</p>
<p>2. Here&#39;s LNU since 1948:</p>
<p><a href="http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&#038;series_id=LNU03000000&#038;years_option=all_years&#038;periods_option=specific_periods&#038;periods=Annual+Data" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputSer.." rel="nofollow">http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputSer..</a>.</p>
<p>Every time you see the chart move up, that&#39;s a net job loss. There are about 10 different instances of the chart moving up.</p>
<p>3. Even the piece in The Atlantic that you&#39;ve linked to uses the Pelosi chart: it&#39;s Chart 2 in the article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Fleckenstein</title>
		<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-1470</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Fleckenstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.flecksoflife.com/?p=841#comment-1470</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m using table LNU03000000. I&#039;m talking about the total number of unemployed.  We have a net job loss.  No President has had a net job loss since Herbert Hoover. That is until Obama.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;There&#039;s also additional items to take into account as well:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/02/unemployment_rate_falls_to_97_but_20000_were_lost.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Unemployment Rate Falls To 9.7%, But 20,000 Jobs Were Lost?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You can keep on going to Pelosi&#039;s graph &amp; numbers but until you can disprove my numbers and my graph then I think we&#039;re done here and my statement remains factual and true:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Under the Democrats, America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m using table LNU03000000. I&#39;m talking about the total number of unemployed.  We have a net job loss.  No President has had a net job loss since Herbert Hoover. That is until Obama.</p>
<p>There&#39;s also additional items to take into account as well:</p>
<p><a href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/02/unemployment_rate_falls_to_97_but_20000_were_lost.php" rel="nofollow">Unemployment Rate Falls To 9.7%, But 20,000 Jobs Were Lost?</a></p>
<p>You can keep on going to Pelosi&#39;s graph &#038; numbers but until you can disprove my numbers and my graph then I think we&#39;re done here and my statement remains factual and true:</p>
<p>&#8220;Under the Democrats, America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor27</title>
		<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-1467</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor27</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:23:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.flecksoflife.com/?p=841#comment-1467</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure which of the CPS tables you&#039;re looking at, but I think it might be the &quot;Unemployment Level - Civilian Labor Force - LNS13000000&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Let&#039;s look at a few of those numbers from that table.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Here&#039;s the unemployment level for the last four months:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Oct. 09: 15,612&lt;br&gt;Nov. 09: 15,340&lt;br&gt;Dec. 09: 15,267&lt;br&gt;Jan. 10: 14,837&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Notice how those numbers are decreasing? That is completely consistent with the Pelosi graph: the unemployment level is decreasing.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Look at the CPS table again: if you start at the beginning, every single month going back to January 1948 shows a number of unemployed people. That makes sense: we&#039;re never at 100% employment. In fact, &quot;full employment&quot; is usually defined as around a 4.5% unemployment rate: &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.colorado.edu/economics/courses/econ2020/section5/full-employment.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.colorado.edu/economics/courses/econ2...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you&#039;re using the CPS unemployment level table to argue that &quot;America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years,&quot; you&#039;re using the wrong table. That&#039;s not what the table shows: it shows that America has always had unemployed people.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Whether you choose to use the unemployment level chart, or the employment level chart, the important statistic is how the number changes over time. Right now, there are less unemployed people. The unemployment rate is still too high, but the numbers are starting to show improvement.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As far as the unemployment rate, BLS explains how they derive the numbers here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m not sure which of the CPS tables you&#39;re looking at, but I think it might be the &#8220;Unemployment Level &#8211; Civilian Labor Force &#8211; LNS13000000&#8243;</p>
<p>Let&#39;s look at a few of those numbers from that table.</p>
<p>Here&#39;s the unemployment level for the last four months:</p>
<p>Oct. 09: 15,612<br />Nov. 09: 15,340<br />Dec. 09: 15,267<br />Jan. 10: 14,837</p>
<p>Notice how those numbers are decreasing? That is completely consistent with the Pelosi graph: the unemployment level is decreasing.</p>
<p>Look at the CPS table again: if you start at the beginning, every single month going back to January 1948 shows a number of unemployed people. That makes sense: we&#39;re never at 100% employment. In fact, &#8220;full employment&#8221; is usually defined as around a 4.5% unemployment rate: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.colorado.edu/economics/courses/econ2020/section5/full-employment.html" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.colorado.edu/economics/courses/econ2.." rel="nofollow">http://www.colorado.edu/economics/courses/econ2..</a>.</p>
<p>If you&#39;re using the CPS unemployment level table to argue that &#8220;America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years,&#8221; you&#39;re using the wrong table. That&#39;s not what the table shows: it shows that America has always had unemployed people.</p>
<p>Whether you choose to use the unemployment level chart, or the employment level chart, the important statistic is how the number changes over time. Right now, there are less unemployed people. The unemployment rate is still too high, but the numbers are starting to show improvement.</p>
<p>As far as the unemployment rate, BLS explains how they derive the numbers here: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Fleckenstein</title>
		<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-1461</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Fleckenstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.flecksoflife.com/?p=841#comment-1461</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m looking directly at the &lt;em&gt;unemployment&lt;/em&gt; data released by the BLS. You are looking at the employment data.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;That&#039;s the distraction that Pelosi and the Left want you to see.  They don&#039;t want you to look at the unemployment data because when you do then their whole graph falls apart. Hence my graph of unemployment.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Now you can go and access the same data that I did at BLS and see for yourself &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You see Pelosi&#039;s graph makes it look like there was a net jobs increase. There wasn&#039;t.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Like I said in the post - Under the Democrats, America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m looking directly at the <em>unemployment</em> data released by the BLS. You are looking at the employment data.</p>
<p>That&#39;s the distraction that Pelosi and the Left want you to see.  They don&#39;t want you to look at the unemployment data because when you do then their whole graph falls apart. Hence my graph of unemployment.</p>
<p>Now you can go and access the same data that I did at BLS and see for yourself <a href="http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment" rel="nofollow">http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment</a></p>
<p>You see Pelosi&#39;s graph makes it look like there was a net jobs increase. There wasn&#39;t.</p>
<p>Like I said in the post &#8211; Under the Democrats, America has lost jobs every single month for the last 3 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor27</title>
		<link>http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2010/02/06/the-delusions-of-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-1460</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor27</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.flecksoflife.com/?p=841#comment-1460</guid>
		<description>Pete, I don&#039;t know what tables in the BLS reports you&#039;re looking at, but in Oct. 2009, the employment level was 129,633. In Nov. 2009, the employment level was 129,697. (both figures are in thousands, using the &quot;as revised&quot; columns).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;That&#039;s a 64,000 increase. Your chart&#039;s showing a 14,000 decrease.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;source: Employment Situation Summary - January 2010, Table A: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02052010.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit...&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete, I don&#39;t know what tables in the BLS reports you&#39;re looking at, but in Oct. 2009, the employment level was 129,633. In Nov. 2009, the employment level was 129,697. (both figures are in thousands, using the &#8220;as revised&#8221; columns).</p>
<p>That&#39;s a 64,000 increase. Your chart&#39;s showing a 14,000 decrease.</p>
<p>source: Employment Situation Summary &#8211; January 2010, Table A: <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02052010.htm" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit.." rel="nofollow">http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
