Big Day in Sconny

[bushwacked]

You seem to be obsessed with a Obama/Walker comparison that any logical human being would not make. Wisconsin/Walker is being compared to it peers . . other Governors/states . . using the same measuring metric used by every other state.

 

 

You gotta admit that the "Secret jobs that only I know about" metric is pretty imaginiative though.

[tosberg34]

You seem to be obsessed with a Obama/Walker comparison that any logical human being would not make. Wisconsin/Walker is being compared to it peers . . other Governors/states . . using the same measuring metric used by every other state. That seems to be a pretty fair barometer doesnt it? Kinda like apples to apples? But Walker doesnt "like" those numbers, becasue it shows that he cant drastically cut state jobs and positions without an enormous jump in private jobs to offset his agenda. That hasnt happened.

 

But walker jumps out with hi s"own" way of accounting, that surprisingly paints him in a better light! Shocker! It is similar to how he has flip flopped on his budget accounting to make himself look better.

 

Walker is a classic politician that cannot be trusted or believed. he will get his reckoning in the next election and see how things fall out.

 

PS- If Obama was anything like Walker, we would have a single payer healthc are system and a 70% tax on the upper brackets. Walker doesnt have any concern about the views or input of other alternatives, so it is "eff you, I will do what I want".

 

 

So using more accurate numbers is now a secret accounting trick? Or it's because you're just mad because you can't use the old numbers anymore to bash Walker? How is a census (read: counting) of jobs less accurate than a survey of only 3.5% and extrapolating that out?

 

Read the article I posted above on how wildly inaccurate the old numbers are...

 

...and then read this:

 

 

In the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall race, Republicans and Democrats continue to spar over the jobs numbers under Governor Scott Walker's administration. Republicans have been touting the fact that the unemployment rate has declined from 7.7 percent to 6.8 percent since Governor Scott Walker took office. But Democrats have countered by pointing to a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report showing that the state lost 29,000 non-farm jobs during the past year — making Wisconsin dead last in that category nationwide.

 

So has Wisconsin's employment outlook become better or worse? According to a new and more reliable jobs report, the BLS report cited by the Democrats is inaccurate. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today, the BLS "figures were based on a sample of 3.5% of the state's employers and are subject to significant revisions." According to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages — which is a hard count of actual jobs in Wisconsin, not a survey — the state actually gained more than 30,000 since Walker took office.

 

The new jobs report was met with outrage and incredulity from Wisconsin Democrats and liberals in the press. Tom Barrett had accused Walker of trying to "cook the books."

 

"They brought in a fiction writer. They don't like their numbers. They're going to make up their own numbers," Barrett told reporters earlier this week.

 

"Scott Walker Magically Turns Dismal Wisconsin Job Numbers Into A Pre-Election Miracle," read the headline of liberal pundit Rick Ungar's story at Forbes.

Slate's business and economics correspondent Matthew Yglesias wrote a similarly snarky headline about the Wisconsin jobs report.

 

But there's really no question that the Quarterly Census is a more accurate report of Wisconsin's jobs numbers. Employers are legally required to submit their employment numbers to the state census. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

 

"Each state gathers the quarterly census data from virtually all employers in both the public and private sectors, which are mandated to share staff and wage data as part of their tax and unemployment insurance reports. That makes it a more reliable source of employment data, state officials and many economists say. [...]

 

The quarterly (census) data is much more reliable," said Brian Jacobsen, an economist in Menomonee Falls with Wells Fargo Funds Management. "If that one's showing job gains, that's going to be tough to argue with. It's a census as opposed to just a sample. That's a reason why that survey is used for benchmarking purposes."

 

The notion that the Wisconsin Department of Worforce Development—the state bureau that released the state's jobs data—"cooked the books" is simply absurd. Dennis Winters, Chief of the Office of Economic Advisors at the department, signed a petition in to recall Governor Walker.

 

John Koskinen, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue's chief economist, recently delivered a compelling 15-minute presentation to the Association of Government Accountants on why the BLS report on Wisconsin's job loss is inaccurate.

 

"On the one hand, [bLS] report, that we had the largest year over year decline in employment. On the other hand they reported we were one of the sixteen states that had a significant drop in unemployment," Koskinen told accountants. "How is it we can have both at the same time? I'm arguing we can't."Koskinen pointed to three other data points from BLS that point toward job growth: For 2011, Wisconsin was in the "top quarter for income growth," income and sales tax collections "are running well ahead of estimates," and jobless claims went down to "pre-recession levels."

 

Koskinen was asked if the unemployment rate might be going down because of discouraged dropping out of the workforce (a phenomenon that's played a huge role in bringing down the national unemployment rate). But that isn't the case in Wisconsin. "Our workforce has actually been expanding over the last six months," Koskinen said. "The total workforce has expanded, number of people employed has expanded, and the number of people unemployed has fallen — sort of the ideal situation that you want."

 

"If Wisconsin was in fact losing 30,0000 jobs... one would expect that we would have increasing unemployment compensation claims. That's not true," Koskinen said. "We're starting to get back to pre-recession levels—those are the continuing claims. Indeed, if we think in terms of initial [unemployment] claims, which is the new records, we have in fact fallen below pre-recession levels."

 

Koskinen also noted that "our biggest gains have been in manufacturing—far and away."

 

It's understandable that some might be leery of the accuracy of an alternative jobs report three weeks prior to an election. But all evidence points to the conclusion that Koskinen and the Quarterly Census are correct: Wisconsin is gaining jobs. With the facts against them, Wisconsin Democrats are now resorting to accusations that Walker is guilty of "illegal coordination" with the state agency in releasing the jobs numbers early. But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked the Bureau of Labor Statistics if the state broke any rules by releasing the numbers now. "No," an official emailed the Journal, "BLS does not have any concerns. Wisconsin is free to publish its data when it wishes."

 

Edited May 17, 2012 by tosberg34

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm talking about trickle down here

 

<snip>

 

"SEE!? IT DOESN'T EFFING WORK! CAN WE FINALLY STOP PRETENDING THAT HANDING MONEY TO THE GUYS AT THE TOP MEANS THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND OPEN FACTORIES JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT!?!"

 

 

 

Off topic, but this. I've come to the conclusion that trickle down, or supply side economics, is perhaps the greatest scam ever inflicted on the world. All it does is increase deficits. It should be as discredited as the flat earth theory.

 

Simple question - if you lower taxes for the top x percent and do nothing to increase the buying power of those who provide the demand, indeed you advocate to decrease their buying power, why do you think jobs will be created? It's lunacy.

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

PS This recall seems to be nothing more really than a small (yet vocal) group who is unhappy with the election and policies of the new Governor.

 

1million is small? 2 republican elected officials already have been recalled.

[gbpfan1231]

You seem to be obsessed with a Obama/Walker comparison that any logical human being would not make. Wisconsin/Walker is being compared to it peers . . other Governors/states . . using the same measuring metric used by every other state. That seems to be a pretty fair barometer doesnt it? Kinda like apples to apples? But Walker doesnt "like" those numbers, becasue it shows that he cant drastically cut state jobs and positions without an enormous jump in private jobs to offset his agenda. That hasnt happened.

 

But walker jumps out with hi s"own" way of accounting, that surprisingly paints him in a better light! Shocker! It is similar to how he has flip flopped on his budget accounting to make himself look better.

 

Walker is a classic politician that cannot be trusted or believed. he will get his reckoning in the next election and see how things fall out.

 

PS- If Obama was anything like Walker, we would have a single payer healthc are system and a 70% tax on the upper brackets. Walker doesnt have any concern about the views or input of other alternatives, so it is "eff you, I will do what I want".

 

Like I said before but you tend to only read what you want - show me where his numbers are false and I will agree with you. If his way of accounting is wrong then he will get blasted and he deserves it. Nobody has yet to be able to prove his numbers are wrong or imaginary as Bushwacked has put it.

 

It is simple - prove his numbers are wrong and you seriously have something - until then you don't.

 

Are you not trying to compare Walker and Obama at the end of your post to make a point of how bad Walker is?

[bpwallace49]

 

 

Are you not trying to compare Walker and Obama at the end of your post to make a point of how bad Walker is?

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not. I am showing that comparing them is lunacy. Yet you have compared them multiple times in this very thread.

[tosberg34]

Like I said before but you tend to only read what you want - show me where his numbers are false and I will agree with you. If his way of accounting is wrong then he will get blasted and he deserves it. Nobody has yet to be able to prove his numbers are wrong or imaginary as Bushwacked has put it.

 

It is simple - prove his numbers are wrong and you seriously have something - until then you don't.

 

Are you not trying to compare Walker and Obama at the end of your post to make a point of how bad Walker is?

 

 

I've posted two links above showing how the numbers put out by the WI Department of Workforce Development are much more accurate. It's clear neither one of the lefty lovebirds have read them as they want to continue beating the wrong drum.

 

And besides, I thought this recall was about Collective Bargaining? Why are we even discussing jobs?

[stevegrab]

1million is small? 2 republican elected officials already have been recalled.

 

 

Since I haven't been following this that closely and others have, care to help me with some numbers

• who are the 1 million you claim support the recall (was that from petitions to get it on the ballot?)

• how many total people are there in the state

 

I started reading some info and may have found my own answers, as WI needed some 1/2 million signatures to get the recall on the ballot (25% of those who voted for the position). So if you got a full million that is double what you needed, and about 50% of the number who voted in the last election.

 

 

Here in Akron when they tried to recall the mayor they were able to get the measure on the ballot with something like 20 of the number who voted in the last election for the position being recalled. Well since something like 20-30% voted for the other candidate in the last election, there are easily enough people against the winner to support a recall effort.

 

The problem I have with some of the recalls is their use, it isn't because the politician has done something scandalous, illegal or otherwise attrocious, just that those who backed the losing candidate are not happy about the election result, so they want to try a recall. Or that the politician has done some things they don't like (surprise there, since they voted for the other guy), so its cause for removing them from ofifce. They're simply using the recall as a supplemental election, which costs lots of money, and usually fails since the voters already voiced their opinion and elected the person they wanted.

[gbpfan1231]

Since I haven't been following this that closely and others have, care to help me with some numbers

• who are the 1 million you claim support the recall (was that from petitions to get it on the ballot?)

• how many total people are there in the state

 

I started reading some info and may have found my own answers, as WI needed some 1/2 million signatures to get the recall on the ballot (25% of those who voted for the position). So if you got a full million that is double what you needed, and about 50% of the number who voted in the last election.

 

 

Here in Akron when they tried to recall the mayor they were able to get the measure on the ballot with something like 20 of the number who voted in the last election for the position being recalled. Well since something like 20-30% voted for the other candidate in the last election, there are easily enough people against the winner to support a recall effort.

 

The problem I have with some of the recalls is their use, it isn't because the politician has done something scandalous, illegal or otherwise attrocious, just that those who backed the losing candidate are not happy about the election result, so they want to try a recall. Or that the politician has done some things they don't like (surprise there, since they voted for the other guy), so its cause for removing them from ofifce. They're simply using the recall as a supplemental election, which costs lots of money, and usually fails since the voters already voiced their opinion and elected the person they wanted.

 

 

BINGO - we have a winner - now be prepared to be called a pastey cheezehead.

[detlef]

It all started when he hit me back.

[gbpfan1231]

Are you not trying to compare Walker and Obama at the end of your post to make a point of how bad Walker is?

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not. I am showing that comparing them is lunacy. Yet you have compared them multiple times in this very thread.

 

 

Here is what you said "PS- If Obama was anything like Walker, we would have a single payer healthc are system and a 70% tax on the upper brackets. Walker doesnt have any concern about the views or input of other alternatives, so it is "eff you, I will do what I want"."

 

That does not try to compare the two?

[bpwallace49]

 

 

Here is what you said "PS- If Obama was anything like Walker, we would have a single payer healthc are system and a 70% tax on the upper brackets. Walker doesnt have any concern about the views or input of other alternatives, so it is "eff you, I will do what I want"."

 

That does not try to compare the two?

 

 

Is says they are very very different. You try to use excuses to compare Obama and walker and how walker is just like the president. I say they are NOT and a stupid basis of comparison due to their jobs and scope.

 

Sigh. I see why so many ignore you and tossberg. You really have reading issues.

[gbpfan1231]

Is says they are very very different. You try to use excuses to compare Obama and walker and how walker is just like the president. I say they are NOT and a stupid basis of comparison due to their jobs and scope.

 

Sigh. I see why so many ignore you and tossberg. You really have reading issues.

 

Dude come on - where did I ever say Walker is just like the president? Again like I have done before I have asked you to show me where I have said things that I did not say and you tend to not reply. My comparisons are about people who give Obama a pass on jobs because they say he needs time or because of the mess he inherited and I am showing that these same people don't give Walker that same pass. That is not saying Walker is like Obama - it is saying that these people are being hypocrites.

 

The word compare does not mean that something has to be alike - here is the definition of the word compare... "to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences" this is exactly what YOU did.

[bushwacked]

I, for one, I'm embarresed by my hypocracy of not equating 2+ years of consistent job creation on a national level with WI bleeding jobs under their current leadership, last in the nation.

 

 

Desperately stupid rationlization always brings a degree of humor..Cheeze 1 is funny, I'm guessing Cheeze 2 is funnierer.

[gbpfan1231]

I, for one, I'm embarresed by my hypocracy of not equating 2+ years of consistent job creation on a national level with WI bleeding jobs under their current leadership, last in the nation.

 

 

Desperately stupid rationlization always brings a degree of humor..Cheeze 1 is funny, I'm guessing Cheeze 2 is funnierer.

 

Are you implying that you have never posted about Obama needing more time or that he inherited a mess from Bush and that you can't blame the economy on Obama? Are you seriously saying that? Maybe something about Obama promising unemployment will not go above 8%?

 

I am not the best using the search function but I am pretty sure you were one of those people.

[bushwacked]

All I'm saying is you and the even spazzier cheeze head are not very good at making points in written format over the innernets.

[gbpfan1231]

All I'm saying is you and the even spazzier cheeze head are not very good at making points in written format over the innernets.

 

All I am saying is that you are a bit of a hypocrite. I did a quick search and found this that you wrote -"C'mon, how bout a little regard towards econ 101 and reality? The purpose of the bill was to stop the boulder rolling downhill, not to return us to the pre-Bush days in one year."

 

So what did you mean by boulder rolling downhill? Maybe referring to blaming the person before Obama?? Did you not say Obama needs more than a year?

 

All I am saying is that if you say these things about unemployment in regards to Obamas presidency is that it is a bit hypocritical to come and rail on Walker for jobs in a similar timeframe.

[bushwacked]

Did you ever hear the story about the cheeze head who tried really hard to pwn people on the innernets? He wasn't very good at it and everyone thought he was pastey.

[gbpfan1231]

Did you ever hear the story about the cheeze head who tried really hard to pwn people on the innernets? He wasn't very good at it and everyone thought he was pastey.

 

Then I guess I was wrong. I have no problem admitting I was wrong - I am nto the best at searching but I did think that in the past you gave a pass to Obama on unemployment saying he needed more time and that Bush made it a bigger mess than previously thought. If you never said those words then I was wrong to post that you did.

 

Maybe Big John could look but I am ok with being wrong on that - my bad.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Did you ever hear the story about the cheeze head who tried really hard to pwn people on the innernets? He wasn't very good at it and everyone thought he was pastey.

do you mean pasty or pasties? cause yukon love the pasty's from the U.P.

[stevegrab]

Did you ever hear the story about the cheeze head who tried really hard to pwn people on the innernets? He wasn't very good at it and everyone thought he was pastey.

 

Just my opinion, but virtually ever comment I've read from you in this thread is a condescending put down and childish BS. You've contributed nothing but think you're some superior being. gbpfan seems to be trying to have a reasonable discussion, but you just throw out the same old stuff. They've even gone so far as admit that maybe they are mistaken, and your response will no doubt be "of course you're wrong you're a stinking cheesehead".

[gbpfan1231]

Did you ever hear the story about the cheeze head who tried really hard to pwn people on the innernets? He wasn't very good at it and everyone thought he was pastey.

 

So why don't you add something here and explain what you did mean by your post that I copied in? Were you not saying Obama needs more than a tear? What was your point with what I showed you wrote and explain why Walker should be held responsible for jobs when he is less than 2 years in office?

[tosberg34]

I, for one, I'm embarresed by my hypocracy of not equating 2+ years of consistent job creation on a national level with WI bleeding jobs under their current leadership, last in the nation.

 

 

Desperately stupid rationlization always brings a degree of humor..Cheeze 1 is funny, I'm guessing Cheeze 2 is funnierer.

 

 

And of course, you would be wrong. WI is not last in the nation based on the new numbers from a clearly more accurate report. The report you keep citing is only a sample of 3.5% of employers extrapolated out. Not even close to accurate than the actual census (actual count) of 90% of WI employers that just came out the other day. Even most economists agree that the numbers released by the WI Department of Workforce Development are much more accurate and Walker did not "cook the books" as his opponents are implying.

 

I've posted two links for you and BP to read explaining that but I'm assuming from your responses that at least you have not. Instead, sticking to your same mantra based upon a wildly inaccurate report. I understand - it's all the left had to lean on here in WI (funny, you're not even from WI) and it is now proven inaccurate so now they have nothing. Even Walker's opponent cannot dispute the numbers, instead relying on the argument that Walker released it early because of the recall (implying that somehow it's not fair).

 

But stick to your inaccurate report since apparently the truth doesn't fit your narrative.

Edited May 19, 2012 by tosberg34

[tosberg34]

Just my opinion, but virtually ever comment I've read from you in this thread is a condescending put down and childish BS. You've contributed nothing but think you're some superior being. gbpfan seems to be trying to have a reasonable discussion, but you just throw out the same old stuff. They've even gone so far as admit that maybe they are mistaken, and your response will no doubt be "of course you're wrong you're a stinking cheesehead".

 

 

It's not just this thread that he does that.

[bushwacked]

do you mean pasty or pasties? cause yukon love the pasty's from the U.P.

 

 

 

I get my pasty's from the mining town of Butte Montana.....they are yummy