Did You Hear That, Senator Boxer?

by Little Miss Attila on June 25, 2010

Don’t fuck with Mickey Kaus.

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

Azmat Hussain June 25, 2010 at 1:58 pm

I have a job for him!

And all my right wing friends who are complaining about the unemployment situation…please !


Little Miss Attila June 25, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Please what? We aren’t the party that’s killing jobs with onerous regulations.

As for the “job application,” you’d have a lot of takers on that if it weren’t a political stunt.

Perhaps if Mexico concentrated on developing its economy, as Israel has done, it wouldn’t need the subsidies it gets from the U.S.

I love the Mexican people, but the Mexican government–along with its economists, LEOs and business leaders–needs to step up.


Darrell June 25, 2010 at 8:05 pm

Who do you think did farm work–and still do it –in many places.
Are the illegals that are working construction for $20-$30/hr cash giving up their jobs too? I bet there are a lot of takers.


Azmat Hussain June 25, 2010 at 8:36 pm

I am willing to give up my $30 /hr job, For any takers out there who are willing to learn Math…the great equalizer, but nobody thinks Math is cool anymore:)


Azmat Hussain June 25, 2010 at 8:47 pm

When Reagan was president, the high unemployment was just a result of the law of demand and supply, you see in a free market economy we get these periods where some companies over produce (its called competition) and then these companies have to start to cut back because there is lack of demand, And this snowballs, Reagan’s solution was brilliant, create even more unemployment by kicking people off the unemployment insurance, that created a pool of desperate people who would take those farm jobs. I wish Obama would be such a jerk to the people of the United States Of America. Then he would be called a great Republican president.


Darrell June 26, 2010 at 2:46 am

Reagan inherited Carter’s high unemployment numbers and an economy on life support caused by the tried-and-failed Democratic policies that resulted in double-digit interest rates, choking tax rates, and energy shortages–which for natural gas interstate prices were totally a result of Carter’s dual market–unregulated intrastate prices, regulated interstate prices. Under that structure, producers dedicated as much new gas as possible to the intrastate market, leaving big city users, particularly industrial customers, curtailed. Reagan deregulated the gas market, and almost immediately the still-record prices, plummeted.

Reagan’s tax cuts lead to increased investment in our economy and it boomed. Cutting the Windfall Profits Tax, lead to increased drilling and production worldwide, including providing a North Sea alternative to OPEC domination. Unemployment gradually fell from 13 percent to 5 percent. Forget what you heard when you were eying your neighbor’s goat in Pakistan and preparing for your Leftist indoctrination, Reagan’s years were golden for all. Even the Democrats’ noses grow when they lie about it now–the ones that actually lived it. The others are just lying from the playbook.


Azmat Hussain June 26, 2010 at 5:14 am

Oh Darrel, you can only think in terms of goats and neighbors, cause that is your level. But since you attribute high unemployment to inheritance what did you think Obama inherited?
The reason why unemployment fell was because Reagan was a game changer, he changed the way unemployment was counted. Cooked the books, you might not be old enough to remember that, I was there. By the way I wish we had double digit interest rate, the Fed would be able to do something like cut rates to stimulate the economy. How are you at economics and mathematics Darrel?


Darrell June 26, 2010 at 9:02 pm

There you go again, Azmat. Just because you said it a second time doesn’t mean that it’s true. If I recall, the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed some definitions regarding the number of weeks you hadn’t been actively looking for work in determining whether you were classified as unemployed in the early 1970s–but that was to conform with requests from the International Labour Organization (a UN Agency) and had to do with standardizing international data. They was some debate at the time but the BLS made adjustments to historical data where possible and certainly covered all the changes in the accompanying notes to time-series data. Besides, they argued, there were seven categories of numbers (at the time–now six) and poeople just moved into another category.
U1: Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
U4: U3 + “discouraged workers”, or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other “marginally attached workers”, or “loosely attached workers”, or those who “would like” and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).
Btw, the official ILO definition of unemployment is “those who are currently not working but are willing and able to work for pay, currently available to work, and have actively searched for work. Individuals who are actively seeking job placement must make the effort to: be in contact with an employer, have job interviews, contact job placement agencies, send out resumes, submit applications, respond to advertisements, or some other means of active job searching within the prior four weeks. Simply looking at advertisements and not responding will not count as actively seeking job placement. Since not all unemployment may be “open” and counted by government agencies, official statistics on unemployment may not be accurate.”

Sounds about right. For a UN Agency especially. This pdf gives you all the notes on the changes over the years from the 1940s to the present. You can find multiple changes in every decade–when the BLS thinks it can get a more precise answer like when they decided to try and get a handle on illegals in the workforce and attempt to count their unemployment as well. It’s all here, Azmat. Maybe you can quote the parts that support your thesis.

I do remember that the Democrats tried to push this lie in the 1980s but it never got traction. There wre still reporters that would call and check things out before they printed them. And the BLS following implementing of changes in procedures that had begun in the 70s was certainly not a story. No Journolist back then and no Daily Kos and the DU. All Reagan had to ask before Nov. 1984 was are you better off today than you were 4 years ago. The landslide gave him his answer.

And it wasn’t the bleat of a goat.


Darrell June 26, 2010 at 9:05 pm

Oh, your pdf, Azmat.


Just click.


Darrell June 26, 2010 at 9:09 pm

The part that should interest you as a truth seeker starts with “Historical Comparability” on page 184. Enjoy and don’t say that I never gave you anything to speak truth to power.


Azmat Hussain June 27, 2010 at 7:11 am

So I guess what you are saying is that if Obama wins again, then you will have your answer are we better off?
I can wait for that day. Wanna put some dough on it?


Darrell June 27, 2010 at 9:47 pm

Better off than dead? I’d have to think about it.

The cat is out of the bag about Obama. Now he can call himself “urbane,” “progressive,” “middle-of-the-road,” but everyone will just smell “Socialist.” The jig is up.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: