Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deal reached on unemployment, payroll tax cut
cbs ^ | 2/16/2012 | ap

Posted on 02/16/2012 8:46:50 AM PST by tobyhill

Relieved congressional bargainers say they've reached agreement on compromise legislation extending payroll tax cuts and benefits for the long-term unemployed through 2012, edging a white-hot political battle a major step closer to finally being resolved.

Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the two top negotiators, strode from a conference room minutes after midnight Thursday to say that only technical issues and the drafting of legislative language remained. The bill would assure a continued tax cut for 160 million workers and jobless benefits for several million others, delivering top election-year priorities for President Barack Obama.

"It's a very good deal for the country," said Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: payrolltax; unemployment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 last
To: 1rudeboy; Brown Deer; tobyhill
tobyhill, for example, appears to understand the point I am making . . . what's your excuse?

You realise that tobyhill made the same point that I did, right?

101 posted on 02/18/2012 6:34:31 PM PST by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
Are you dividing by zero, again? What astounds me the most about threads such as these is, when someone makes a comment that is demonstrated to be false, they simply forge ahead.

I mean, I can't count how many times I've "walked back" a comment, or simply admitted I was incorrect. What's with you? Is it an ego thing?

102 posted on 02/18/2012 6:35:45 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

Then why can’t you agree with his comment #31? [snort]


103 posted on 02/18/2012 6:38:13 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; tobyhill; Yashcheritsiy
Your statement, that "Because of the way they calculate U3, this (should) ironically make the U3 start shooting back up" [emphasis added], is false.

How is it false? You still have been unable to explain to anyone here how the unemployment rate is calculated!

Then why can’t you agree with his comment #31?

That comment had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. It was in response to your dumb statement, "I really am running out of ways to repeat the same thing over and over. "

what tobyhill said was, "Get ready to see a spike in the unemployment numbers because suddenly these people are counted again."

You just keep on demonstrating your complete stupidity here with your comments! Please explain to us morons how the unemployment rate is calculated. Pretty, pretty please!!!
104 posted on 02/18/2012 6:55:44 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Yashcheritsiy
What astounds me the most about threads such as these is, when someone makes a comment that is demonstrated to be false, they simply forge ahead.

Where was his comment demonstrated to be false?

Still waiting after how many days, for you to explain how the unemployment rate is calculated...

Too complicated for you?
105 posted on 02/18/2012 6:59:21 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]


106 posted on 02/18/2012 7:02:12 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
Where was his comment demonstrated to be false?
My comment #99, blind man.

Still waiting after how many days, for you to explain how the unemployment rate is calculated...
Too complicated for you?

No, not at all . . . unemployment compensation is not a factor. Did you forget what we are discussing?

107 posted on 02/18/2012 7:10:09 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
I'll keep repeating it over and over, until it sinks in. Because unemployment compensation is not considered in the calculation of the unemployment rate (U-3 or otherwise), the statement in question is false. You can hold your breath until you turn blue, and it won't change a thing.
108 posted on 02/18/2012 7:13:50 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; tobyhill; Yashcheritsiy
Did you forget what we are discussing?

It seems that you have forgotten, and/or like I have already stated, you have absolutely no reading comprehension!

There were two comments made with which you disagreed and stated as false!

1 - "Get ready to see a spike in the unemployment numbers because suddenly these people are counted again."
2 - "Exactly. Because of the way they calculate U3, this (should) ironically make the U3 start shooting back up as tons of people reapply for benefits."

Neither one of them stated anything whatsoever about unemployment compensation. For some reason that is what YOU and you alone keep seeing! It is YOU and you alone that is discussing unemployment compensation.

The fact is, both of those statements ARE very correct and you are a totally ignorant moron.

You keep stating that you understand how the unemployment rate is calculated but so far you have been unable to even try and explain it. So, you obviously DO NOT know anything about it.
109 posted on 02/18/2012 7:27:29 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Ok, got it. The subject was unemployment compensation, a small number of erroneous comments were made regarding unemployment compensation, but you have determined that the subject is not unemployment compensation. I bow to the master.


110 posted on 02/18/2012 7:39:17 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
1 - "Get ready to see a spike in the unemployment numbers because suddenly these people are counted again."
2 - "Exactly. Because of the way they calculate U3, this (should) ironically make the U3 start shooting back up as tons of people reapply for benefits."

Reapplying for benefits doesn't change the rate.

Never applying for benefits doesn't change the rate.

Benefits running out doesn't change the rate.

If you stop applying for your benefits during the eligibility period, that doesn't change the rate either.

If you stop looking, start looking or if you find a job are the only things that would impact the rate.

Why so dense?

111 posted on 02/18/2012 7:40:50 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

That changes the rate.

Persons not in the labor force are those who are not classified as employed or unemployed during the survey reference week.

That changes the rate.

Benefits running out doesn't change the rate.

If they run out, and you stop looking for work, indeed it does change the rate.

Reapplying for benefits doesn't change the rate.

If you have dropped out of the workforce and then begin looking for work again, indeed it does change the rate.

Why so dense?

If you stop looking, start looking or if you find a job are the only things that would impact the rate. Yep!
112 posted on 02/18/2012 7:58:43 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Math is hard easy. Harder if you're stupid.
113 posted on 02/18/2012 8:00:18 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
If they run out, and you stop looking for work, indeed it does change the rate.

Yep.

If you have dropped out of the workforce and then begin looking for work again, indeed it does change the rate.

Yep.

That's the case whether unemployment benefits are extended or not.

Because benefits aren't used to calculate the rate.

114 posted on 02/18/2012 8:24:20 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
It is YOU and you alone that is discussing unemployment compensation.

From the first sentence of the article:

Relieved congressional bargainers say they've reached agreement on compromise legislation extending payroll tax cuts and benefits for the long-term unemployed through 2012.... [emphasis added]


115 posted on 02/18/2012 8:35:46 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

is that your self portrait?


116 posted on 02/18/2012 8:48:00 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Because benefits aren't used to calculate the rate.

That's right! Benefits and compensation have absolutely nothing to do with it. None of us, has said that. Why do you and 1rudemoron keep arguing that point?

Employment Situation Summary - JANUARY 2009

Labor force: 153.716 million
Employed Persons: 141.637 million
Unemployed Persons 11.616 million
Unemployment Rate 7.6%

Not in Labor force: 81.023 million

Employment Situation Summary - JANUARY 2012

Labor force: 154.395 million
Employed Persons: 142.099 million
Unemployed Persons 12.758 million
Unemployment Rate 8.3%

Not in Labor force: 87.874 million
Marginally attached: 2.809 million
Discouraged workers: 1.059 million

Note that although our population has grown by over 7 million, the total labor force remains virtually unchanged. There are currently almost 4 million marginally attached or discouraged workers. They are NOT counted in the unemployment rate. If only 25% of those workers begin to look for work again, because of the incentive to collect unemployment benefits, the number of unemployed will increase to 13.725 million, which in turn will cause U-3 to rise!

That's the case whether unemployment benefits are extended or not.

So, what's your point? Go back and read the argued statements or are you also as dense as 1rudemoron?
117 posted on 02/18/2012 8:55:38 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Then why can’t you agree with his comment #31? [snort]

Because the comment to which he was responding (#24 IIRC) has nothing to do with what tobyhill and I were talking about.

118 posted on 02/19/2012 5:12:36 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Brown Deer
What's with you? Is it an ego thing?

No - it's the fact, as Brown Deer apparently pointed out last night and which I was going to this morning when I got on FR, that what you're talking about isn't even addressing the point that tobyhill and I made, making your comments range anywhere from irrelevant to idiotic.

You apparently can't even keep track of what others on the thread are talking about, or you don't understand it, one of the two.

119 posted on 02/19/2012 5:15:33 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
My fault for trying to keep it simple, then. It got the two of you confused. The contention was that extension of unemployment benefits would cause U-3 to rise as "millions" would now be counted as looking for work.

As far as I know, despite all the howling, backtracking, and rhetorical gamesmanship on this thread, extension of unemployment benefits has never caused the unemployment rate to rise. My recollection only goes back to the 1990's recession, whish is the last time (I think) unemployment benefits were extended.

So, if extending compensation will increase unemployment, I'd like to see someone actually prove it, instead of simply claiming "it will happen because I say it will happen."

I posted a link to the BLS website. (Amusing, since I am being asked how the unemployment rate is calculated). The data is out there. It shouldn't be too hard to see the "spike," if it exists, or to determine how many "millions" of workers will be considered to rejoin the labor force. You don't even have to go back to the 1990's, you can go back to the last time the Obama administration extended unemployment compensation.

Finally, your comment that:

Exactly. Because of the way they calculate U3, this (should) ironically make the U3 start shooting back up as tons of people reapply for benefits.

was incorrect, is still incorrect, and will be incorrect for eternity. So if you think that I "can't even keep track" of what has been said on this thread, then keep medicating yourself.
120 posted on 02/19/2012 6:19:56 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy; 1rudeboy; Brown Deer
You know...this little back and forth between you all has been entertaining. I will admit that I do not know a lot about how unemployment works personally...especially now...but I watched my dad be on it numerous times. He was a pipefitter.

But anyway...first of all...1rudeboy is RIGHT with the basic premise of his argument. The U3 calculation has NOTHING whatsoever to do with those who are currently receiving compensation via unemployment insurance. U3 is simply a ratio of those who are unemployed and who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks vs those in the total workforce. Nothing more...nothing less. PERIOD. I defy you to find another example....or definition. I challenge you.

However...and this is where I do not know all the states laws...the national laws...the rules about unemployment. I only know what my dad when through (and a Seinfeld episode). Where an extension of the unemployment benefits COULD have impact on the U3 is it WOULD make people START looking again who had STOPPED if that is part of the deal. I know it used to be part of the deal...if you were going to collect unemployment you had to prove you were looking for a job. So if that still applies...it would move those workers from U4 back to U3. So this COULD make the U3 go up because people would reapply and then they would have to start looking again...moving from U4 to U3.

So the U3 WOULD go up....but only because they are forced to look again as part of the stipulations of getting unemployment...NOT because its part of the FORMULA for CALCULATING U3.

121 posted on 02/19/2012 7:20:16 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
It's clear that the record length of unemployment benefits is causing people to rejoin the workforce. Just look at the workforce participation rate.

Wait, what?

122 posted on 02/19/2012 9:54:38 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: NELSON111; Brown Deer; 1rudeboy
So the U3 WOULD go up....but only because they are forced to look again as part of the stipulations of getting unemployment...NOT because its part of the FORMULA for CALCULATING U3.

Yes, I know. That was my whole point.

123 posted on 02/19/2012 11:48:11 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: NELSON111
NOT because its part of the FORMULA for CALCULATING U3.

That's right, but neither of the two original comments that 1rudemoron said were false, ever stated that it was part of any formula. For some odd reason, he keeps seeing "unemployment compensation" in those two statements.
124 posted on 02/19/2012 12:02:29 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
It's clear that the record length of unemployment benefits is causing people to rejoin the workforce.

The Wall Street Journal: Unemployment Extension Adds Up to 99 Weeks of Benefits, Nov. 6, 2009

Civilian Labor Force:
Jan 2010, +363,000
Feb 2010, +250,000
Mar 2010, +260,000
Apr 2010, +574,000

Not in Labor Force:
Jan 2010, -454,000
Feb 2010, -84,000
Mar 2010, -100,000
Apr 2010, -394,000

Source: BLS.gov
125 posted on 02/19/2012 1:52:59 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

126 posted on 02/19/2012 5:31:36 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

what’s your point kiddo?


127 posted on 02/19/2012 5:50:58 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
It's clear that the record length of unemployment benefits is causing people to rejoin the workforce. Just look at the workforce participation rate.

Wait, what?

128 posted on 02/19/2012 6:22:30 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; 1rudeboy; Yashcheritsiy
Just look at the workforce participation rate.

I appreciate you reinforcing my point. The 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits were approved in November 2009 and as your chart shows, in the following several months, it skyrocketed. Let's see if your friend is smart enough to figure it out. I doubt it.
129 posted on 02/19/2012 6:39:34 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
99 weeks of extended benefits didn't keep the participation rate steady for 99 weeks?

Why's that?

130 posted on 02/19/2012 6:46:19 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Why would it?


131 posted on 02/19/2012 6:57:54 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Oh, damnit . . . you started talking about numbers.


132 posted on 02/19/2012 7:06:29 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
Let's see if your friend is smart enough to figure it out. I doubt it.

I see a graph line heading downward. You are arguing it should head up. Sucks to be you.

133 posted on 02/19/2012 7:28:32 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
I will tell you this, though . . . it'd be nice to take a look at the 1990's recession. Before the government went crazy about cooking the numbers. I still think our amateur economists are talking out of their asses, but who am I to say?

I was on a blog elsewhere where people were talking about ShadowStats . . . his comment was, "by the time you refute it, they've posted the same BS ten times elsewhere."

134 posted on 02/19/2012 7:36:18 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Don't get me started on ShadowStats again.

Last time I pointed out his BS, you remember what happened.....

135 posted on 02/19/2012 7:57:09 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I see a graph line heading downward.

I see a ten year graph.

You are arguing it should head up.

The 99 week unemployment was passed in November of 2009. Do you know where that is on the chart?

Sucks to be you.
136 posted on 02/19/2012 8:02:43 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
The only thing missing from this thread is someone making fun of you for posting charts. All I did was post some info from BLS, and look where it got me. :)

Or does that come later, on another econ thread? I can't recall.

As an aside, I have probably close to 300 pounds of old Economics and Statistics textbooks in the basement. They are free to anyone who wants them (but you must pay for shipping).

137 posted on 02/20/2012 7:42:30 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Toddsterpatriot; Brown Deer
All I did was post some info from BLS, and look where it got me. :)

No, what got you to this point was your being a churlish ninny who didn't understand what the comments you tried to challenge were even saying, so you took it upon yourself to assume you knew what was meant, rather than simply asking for clarification and a fuller explication of their point, and who then tried to double down on it by attributing to us arguments that we had not made.

THAT'S what got you to where you're at today.

138 posted on 02/21/2012 9:41:27 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
Now that is about as complete a misrepresentation of what happened in comments 12 and 15 as can possibly occur. I really don't see how you can top it.
139 posted on 02/22/2012 6:31:51 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson