If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   In spite of what the politicians keep saying, the census shows no sign of an economic rebound   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 179
    More: Obvious, no symbol, out-of-wedlock births, USC, metropolitan areas by population  
•       •       •

963 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2013 at 9:43 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-19 08:17:39 AM
What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?
 
2013-09-19 08:56:01 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?


It is pretty well known that this economic recovery has left many folks behind.  If you are in the top half you are doing better, the bottom half you are still in recession.  So while on average we have recovered, large segments have not.
 
2013-09-19 09:00:38 AM

EvilEgg: PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?

It is pretty well known that this economic recovery has left many folks behind.  If you are in the top half you are doing better, the bottom half you are still in recession.  So while on average we have recovered, large segments have not.


I know that. I am talking about the misleading use of "census".
 
2013-09-19 09:02:04 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: EvilEgg: PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?

It is pretty well known that this economic recovery has left many folks behind.  If you are in the top half you are doing better, the bottom half you are still in recession.  So while on average we have recovered, large segments have not.

I know that. I am talking about the misleading use of "census".


Ok, I totally missed the point.
 
2013-09-19 09:29:04 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?


Ummm... it seems to be analysis of data gathered during the census. Hats so hard to understand about that?
 
2013-09-19 09:33:31 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?


The latter, I'd imagine.  Baffling with BS is a time-honored tradition of all media outlets.
 
2013-09-19 09:43:54 AM
This is three year old data. Completely useless.
 
2013-09-19 09:47:36 AM

James!: This is three year old data. Completely useless.


I wouldn't say that, economic metrics for the middle class have been declining since 1980.  We have a fundamental problem with economic neoliberalism that is not going away until we create polices that foster more social mobility and limit the accumulation of wealth.  It's that simple, but with the rise of both right and left wing libertarianism, I don't see that happening any time soon.
 
2013-09-19 09:48:58 AM

propasaurus: PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?

Ummm... it seems to be analysis of data gathered during the census. Hats so hard to understand about that?


safetydance.com
 
2013-09-19 09:49:02 AM
Subby:  the census shows no sign of an economic rebound

TFA:  CENSUS: NO SIGN OF ECONOMIC REBOUND FOR MANY IN US
 
2013-09-19 09:50:51 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: EvilEgg: PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?

It is pretty well known that this economic recovery has left many folks behind.  If you are in the top half you are doing better, the bottom half you are still in recession.  So while on average we have recovered, large segments have not.

I know that. I am talking about the misleading use of "census".


The statistics are from the Census Bureau, so it is census data. They don't just sit around with their feet up for nine years and then just do one big mailshot and then go back to lazing around again, they do a massive amount of other related investigations in between.
 
2013-09-19 09:53:35 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?


Right from TFA: "The annual U.S. survey of socioeconomic indicators covers all of last year, representing the third year of a post-recession rebound. "

The actual census is every 10 years. The census people do various surveys of the population pretty much every year for things like this. It also shows that H1B workers are increasing, which everyone pretty much expected. Hiring somebody to do the needful for half of what somebody from here would get paid seems to be popular these days.
 
2013-09-19 10:03:36 AM

DarnoKonrad: James!: This is three year old data. Completely useless.

I wouldn't say that, economic metrics for the middle class have been declining since 1980.  We have a fundamental problem with economic neoliberalism that is not going away until we create polices that foster more social mobility and limit the accumulation of wealth.  It's that simple, but with the rise of both right and left wing libertarianism, I don't see that happening any time soon.


Being a bit of a left-libertarian, I would argue that abolishing the corporation at least helps limit the accumulation of wealth. Is there any of the super-rich who got there without some publicly-traded business?
 
2013-09-19 10:03:51 AM
I wonder if this has anything to do with widespread government malfeasance and cutting spending during what should be a recovery?
 
2013-09-19 10:18:22 AM

Mercutio74: I wonder if this has anything to do with widespread government malfeasance and cutting spending during what should be a recovery?


Or is it the wars Fartbongo keep getting us into?
 
2013-09-19 10:18:27 AM

James!: This is three year old data. Completely useless.


FTFA:The annual U.S. survey of socioeconomic indicators covers all of last year, representing the third year of a post-recession rebound.

The census bureau still collects data during the nine out of ten years they don't release a census. Make sure you read the article before you comment.
 
2013-09-19 10:22:00 AM

llortcM_yllort: James!: This is three year old data. Completely useless.

FTFA:The annual U.S. survey of socioeconomic indicators covers all of last year, representing the third year of a post-recession rebound.

The census bureau still collects data during the nine out of ten years they don't release a census. Make sure you read the article before you comment.


I WILL NOT.
 
2013-09-19 10:24:27 AM
So the facts are in... for the past 5 years we've been crushed by a terrible Great Obama Depression.
 
2013-09-19 10:24:28 AM

EvilEgg: PC LOAD LETTER: What "the census" are they talking about? The one from 3 frigging years ago which has little bearing on any discussion today or is this some sort of media-retarded way of saying "some data from various sources about various things"?

It is pretty well known that this economic recovery has left many folks behind.  If you are in the top half you are doing better, the bottom half you are still in recession.  So while on average we have recovered, large segments have not.


Are you saying if you make less that 51K, your life still is like you're in a recession, but if you make more than 51K, things are looking up?

I'd agree with that assessment.
 
2013-09-19 10:24:35 AM
Recovering?  Yes.
Recovering mostly for the extraordinarily wealthy?  Yes.

Go tug on your bootstraps harder.
 
2013-09-19 10:24:52 AM

propasaurus: Ummm... it seems to be analysis of data gathered during the census. Hats so hard to understand about that?


Well, as someone pointed out, it's not. Also, if it were, it would be 3 years old and useless for this topic.

xria: The statistics are from the Census Bureau, so it is census data. They don't just sit around with their feet up for nine years and then just do one big mailshot and then go back to lazing around again, they do a massive amount of other related investigations in between.


Not really, as buzzcut73 pointed out, it's a survey. I am objecting to "census" for this. Usual media mashup. It's a survey conducted by the Census Bureau. Precision is important. Most Americans think of The Census when they hear "census". Also, the dictionary definition of census is geared towards a complete population survey, not these kinds of activities.I wish media organizations would be precise.

buzzcut73: Right from TFA: "The annual U.S. survey of socioeconomic indicators covers all of last year, representing the third year of a post-recession rebound. "

The actual census is every 10 years. The census people do various surveys of the population pretty much every year for things like this. It also shows that H1B workers are increasing, which everyone pretty much expected. Hiring somebody to do the needful for half of what somebody from here would get paid seems to be popular these days.


And there's the real answer. It's not really a population survey, since it's a sample.

Yes, I am in a pedantic mood today. Fark off, Farkers :)
 
2013-09-19 10:25:40 AM

Aristocles: So the facts are in... for the past 5 years we've been crushed by a terrible Great Obama Depression.


I'm waiting for my hacksaw relief to trickle down.
 
2013-09-19 10:38:24 AM

FarkedOver: Aristocles: So the facts are in... for the past 5 years we've been crushed by a terrible Great Obama Depression.

I'm waiting for my hacksaw relief to trickle down.


I know, right!?

Back in the day, a man could simple toss a hacksaw to the man he just handcuffed to a car with a gas leak... now, we have to wait for Obama's Hacksaw Panels to decide who gets hacksaws and who has to chew through his or her own leg.
 
2013-09-19 10:40:27 AM

Aristocles: So the facts are in... for the past 5 years we've been crushed by a terrible Great Obama Depression.



It's as if you're just coasting on your earlier success, and aren't even trying anymore.
 
2013-09-19 10:42:21 AM

LoneWolf343: DarnoKonrad: James!: This is three year old data. Completely useless.

I wouldn't say that, economic metrics for the middle class have been declining since 1980.  We have a fundamental problem with economic neoliberalism that is not going away until we create polices that foster more social mobility and limit the accumulation of wealth.  It's that simple, but with the rise of both right and left wing libertarianism, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Being a bit of a left-libertarian, I would argue that abolishing the corporation at least helps limit the accumulation of wealth. Is there any of the super-rich who got there without some publicly-traded business?


Probably plenty of them:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_land.html

Staying privately held means fewer regulatory concerns and less exposure to private equity raiders who can buy up your shares and start telling you what to do.
 
2013-09-19 10:42:24 AM

Aristocles: FarkedOver: Aristocles: So the facts are in... for the past 5 years we've been crushed by a terrible Great Obama Depression.

I'm waiting for my hacksaw relief to trickle down.

I know, right!?

Back in the day, a man could simple toss a hacksaw to the man he just handcuffed to a car with a gas leak... now, we have to wait for Obama's Hacksaw Panels to decide who gets hacksaws and who has to chew through his or her own leg.


Hey brother can ya spare a saw?
 
2013-09-19 10:43:07 AM
Here's the summary: people who were the least prepared to weather an economic downturn, suffered the most, and are recovering the slowest.
 
2013-09-19 10:44:18 AM
www.bob-owens.com
In spite of what the politicians keep saying, the census shows no sign of an economic rebound

Let me show you it
 
2013-09-19 10:50:25 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: [www.bob-owens.com image 500x375]
In spite of what the politicians keep saying, the census shows no sign of an economic rebound

Let me show you it


I cant tell you how apt and appropriate your choice of an ignorant child's face is.
 
2013-09-19 11:10:04 AM

buzzcut73: Hiring somebody to do the needful for half of what somebody from here would get paid seems to be popular these days.


i.huffpost.com
 
2013-09-19 11:11:51 AM

Heliovdrake: Zeb Hesselgresser: [www.bob-owens.com image 500x375]
In spite of what the politicians keep saying, the census shows no sign of an economic rebound

Let me show you it

I cant tell you how apt and appropriate your choice of an ignorant child's face is.


Well then let me you show you my knowledgeable mature skeptical face.

2.bp.blogspot.com

In spite of what the politicians keep saying, the census shows no
sign of an economic rebound
 
2013-09-19 11:12:35 AM

Arkanaut: LoneWolf343: DarnoKonrad: James!: This is three year old data. Completely useless.

I wouldn't say that, economic metrics for the middle class have been declining since 1980.  We have a fundamental problem with economic neoliberalism that is not going away until we create polices that foster more social mobility and limit the accumulation of wealth.  It's that simple, but with the rise of both right and left wing libertarianism, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Being a bit of a left-libertarian, I would argue that abolishing the corporation at least helps limit the accumulation of wealth. Is there any of the super-rich who got there without some publicly-traded business?

Probably plenty of them:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_land.html

Staying privately held means fewer regulatory concerns and less exposure to private equity raiders who can buy up your shares and start telling you what to do.


Oh, well then.

Though I still agree that there is too much money in too few pockets. Just lopsided distribution is bad for the economy and it is bad for the democracy.
 
2013-09-19 11:22:56 AM
but Bush
 
2013-09-19 11:32:11 AM
LoneWolf343:   Being a bit of a left-libertarian, I would argue that abolishing the corporation at least helps limit the accumulation of wealth.

In 2008, an estimated 92 million individual investors owned mutual funds and held 82 percent of
total mutual fund assets at year-end
.
*Sources: Investment Company Institute and U.S. Census Bureau

This ^ is a good thing.  It would not be possible without 'the corporations'.  Please don't abolish corporations.
 
2013-09-19 11:34:18 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: LoneWolf343:   Being a bit of a left-libertarian, I would argue that abolishing the corporation at least helps limit the accumulation of wealth.

In 2008, an estimated 92 million individual investors owned mutual funds and held 82 percent of
total mutual fund assets at year-end.
*Sources: Investment Company Institute and U.S. Census Bureau

This ^ is a good thing.  It would not be possible without 'the corporations'.  Please don't abolish corporations.


Thanks to "the corporations" people need to have these mutual funds instead of having decent jobs or any control over their working lives. This is sticking the knife in eight inches and then saying that taking it out two justifies the stabbing in the first place. Yes, abolish the farking corporations.
 
2013-09-19 11:41:05 AM

Aristocles: So the facts are in... for the past 5 years we've been crushed by a terrible Great Obama Depression.


Meh, blaming one person or one party over the other is futile. The truth is everybody in government has been bought by people like the Koch sucker brothers and nothing we say or do is going to change that. Quantitative Easing has been great if you own financial assets, not not invested in but own, for the rest of us it sucks donkey balls. But hey some surfer dude bought lobster with food stamps so lets cut 40 billion dollars out of that program even though it has the best return on investment of any government program.
 
2013-09-19 11:44:10 AM
Know what we need? A cash tax. Tax cash at 10% on the billion. That's right for every billion dollars in cash a firm or individual is holding we should tax them 10%. Because firms and individuals right now are holding on to tens of billions and in some cases hundreds of billions of dollars. That is money that is not doing jack squat for the economy it is just sitting in banks. I say force them to invest in capital, land, wages or pay dividends.
 
2013-09-19 11:45:42 AM
People are partying like its 1928 up in here...  woot
 
2013-09-19 11:46:03 AM

propasaurus: Ummm... it seems to be analysis of data gathered during the census. Hats so hard to understand about that?


Ummm...

www.teamfortress.com
 
2013-09-19 11:46:26 AM
PC LOAD LETTER: Yes, I am in a pedantic mood today. Fark off, Farkers :)

I wasn't thinking pedantic, I was thinking that you were trying to rationalize away the dumb thing you said at the start of the thread.
 
2013-09-19 11:52:49 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: Thanks to "the corporations" people need to have these mutual funds instead of having decent jobs or any control over their working lives.


These mutual funds are for something called 'retriement'.  Most save money from your 'job' income so that when you choose to quit said job you have a pot of money to live off of.

Those that are trained and skilled will likely have a decent job and reasonable control over thier working lives.  If you are competing with a worker in China that makes about 1/8th of your salary, you are going to have a much more difficult working situation.  Hooray globalization!!
 
2013-09-19 11:56:22 AM

Mercutio74: I wonder if this has anything to do with widespread government malfeasance and cutting spending during what should be a recovery?


Or maybe they are being prudent and realizing what trillion dollar deficits extended to as far as they eye can see will do to the economy.
 
2013-09-19 12:00:49 PM

HeadLever: Mercutio74: I wonder if this has anything to do with widespread government malfeasance and cutting spending during what should be a recovery?

Or maybe they are being prudent and realizing what trillion dollar deficits extended to as far as they eye can see will do to the economy.


It's definitely not that or they'd be looking at the defense budget and tax increases.
 
2013-09-19 12:01:12 PM

HeadLever: A Dark Evil Omen: Thanks to "the corporations" people need to have these mutual funds instead of having decent jobs or any control over their working lives.

These mutual funds are for something called 'retriement'.  Most save money from your 'job' income so that when you choose to quit said job you have a pot of money to live off of.

Those that are trained and skilled will likely have a decent job and reasonable control over thier working lives.  If you are competing with a worker in China that makes about 1/8th of your salary, you are going to have a much more difficult working situation.  Hooray globalization!!


As I said, it's a capitalist "solution" to a problem caused by capitalism. You don't fix a knife wound by partly removing the knife and giving the victim some painkillers, you take out the farking knife.
 
2013-09-19 12:03:33 PM

HeadLever: Hooray globalization!!


What we see is corporate globalization and it is to the detriment to workers on a global scale.  What we need is workers globalization.
 
2013-09-19 12:03:34 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: LoneWolf343:   Being a bit of a left-libertarian, I would argue that abolishing the corporation at least helps limit the accumulation of wealth.

In 2008, an estimated 92 million individual investors owned mutual funds and held 82 percent of
total mutual fund assets at year-end.
*Sources: Investment Company Institute and U.S. Census Bureau

This ^ is a good thing.  It would not be possible without 'the corporations'.  Please don't abolish corporations.


Comes at too high of a price.
 
2013-09-19 12:03:58 PM

Mercutio74: It's definitely not that or they'd be looking at the defense budget and tax increases


Sequester was mainly targeted at the defense budget.  Tax increases were passed at the first of the year.  Are you not paying attention?
 
2013-09-19 12:07:12 PM

HeadLever: Mercutio74: It's definitely not that or they'd be looking at the defense budget and tax increases

Sequester was mainly targeted at the defense budget.  Tax increases were passed at the first of the year.  Are you not paying attention?


Wow, what a blatant farking liar you are. Cuts were split between defense and non-defense and were roughly equal percentage-wise.
 
2013-09-19 12:10:55 PM

FarkedOver: What we see is corporate globalization and it is to the detriment to workers on a global scale


Acutally, I would argue that it is more a leveling of the playing field.  the workers in China and India are seeing a great increase in thier GDP per capita (about double since 2007).  However, there is still a very long way to go before we get to par.
 
2013-09-19 12:13:28 PM

HeadLever: Acutally, I would argue that it is more a leveling of the playing field. the workers in China and India are seeing a great increase in thier GDP per capita (about double since 2007). However, there is still a very long way to go before we get to par.


You can argue that, but the main reason anyone goes without basic necessity is done so in the name of profits.  Someone, somewhere has to be exploited or go without in order for someone else to profit
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report