It is another Moonie organization owned by the Washington Times. The author?

I don't much care about their editorials, but this is the only piece out there on what he
is reporting to the press I could find.

It's not an opinion piece.

out of context" quote from Sanders.

Bernie has railed against Obama on TPP, he wasn't misquoted then, either. So
I am not surprised to see him talk about this.

This is after all a primary and the issues will be discussed. If Bernie is misquoted
I imagine his campaign will address it.

I never said Sanders was misquoted. Here's what I was trying to convey:

The economy (and unemployment) were terrible when Obama took over.

Thru hard work, the stimulus, etc, Obama improved the economy and lowered unemployment.

To discredit Obama, the RW runs the meme that the unemployment numbers are incorrect and that everything is terrible because of Obama.

Sanders correctly says the unemployment numbers don't show the whole picture (true, but that is the method for generating the numbers) and that more work needs to be done (also true).

Sanders said this promoting his campaign and because he always promotes issues like this (good for him and good for us Democrats).

Sanders did not say these things to discredit Obama which is what the Beacon is trying to imply.

Conclusion: Avoid crappy sources, IMO.

The figures are what they are..Obama is touting the combined figures?

If they were why would Bernie be highlighting otherwise?

What's telling is you said this one of the few sources reporting on this. That alone tells me all I need to know.

- Why are they the only source reporting it?
- What does it help their candidate gain?
- What's the source bias?

for a reason..he felt they were accurate. The publication did not do that for him,
and I will add one last time, it's not an opinion piece.

Sanders has more than a few differences with Obama, he, not publications, whether
they be conservative or not, have quoted him regarding TPP, and that is only one
example.

Sanders isn't being misrepresented.

This is about PEOPLE. It's not just politics. I know some of those people. One thing that PEOPLE are sick and tired of is how most politicians do not view them as people. Eg, someone who actually cares about people reading that, would be expected to say something like 'if that is true, that is definitely a problem that needs to be fixed'. They would not be worried about how it 'looks' would they?

And this is what everyone I talk to who is looking for a candidate that represents them feels. That they no longer believe that their government cares about THEM.

See Post #13. The article is not about Sanders, it is a method of blaming the Democrats by taking Sanders out of context. I doubt Sanders would approve of the Washington Free Beacon and their tactics. Personally, I'd be pissed if my words were twisted into an attack to lend support the GOP.

and recalculate the past numbers to be able to compare. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges.

talking about both sets of data from the government.

... it's the "official" stat that is misleading. And no, it isn't Obama's fault that it's calculated wrong. It's been calculated wrong for a long time and no one except a few in the DC Bubble are doing squat to change that.

What Bernie is saying is that in order to find real answers, we need to look at the real numbers.

Bernie is spot on with this I might add.
Thanks for putting this to lame ass argument that you're replying to to rest

And then recalculate it for the past hundred years and then we can have a fair discussion of what it means.

Even when NBC reports this they report labor participation, and often several different numbers.

This is a pretty well known thing...

It's good to keep talking about it.

but the U3 and U6 changed during the Reagan administration and later the Clinton years. Sanders has been around that long. I wonder if somebody on staff is using the Carter years of doing this? Because using those standards unemployment would be indeed higher.

The changes, some people have suggested was political. If Sanders, or anybody else, is using those calculations, it would creep it up. And yes, they used to take into account things like youth and partial employment that are not fully taken into account any more. If this is the case, he has a hell of an Econ wonk on staff.

and our Social Security disability is about to be cut next year thanks to the Republican shenanigans at the beginning of the year. The SSD funds are running out, and needed a infusion from the SS fund and a routine transfer is being held up by the Republicans.

Bernie understands this, and wants to improve our lives... I have a kid to take care of, and it isn't easy on disability. A lot of flexibility is needed.

when my college sociology class -- which was QUITE a while ago...


rocktivity

I have no problem with using different metrics for unemployment but it is unfair to use a different metric to measure unemployment then we used for every preceding administration.

I don't think anybody disputes that the official unemployment figure is lower than the real figure. But it has always been thus...

And by whatever metric we use it's much better now than it was in the Winter and Spring of 2009.

I agree, Sanders is not suggesting there has been no improvement.

Cool first name though... I have a bi-racial friend whose first name is Lincoln...

There also used to be an African American lineman in the NFL whose name was Lincoln Kennedy.

Height: 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m)
Weight: 335 lb (152 kg)

How formidable can one be on the football field..wow.

The "official" unemployment rate is the U-3, which is at 5.4 percent.

Bernie is using the U-6 rate, which is 10.5 percent.

Then there is the David Stockman Unemployment Rate of 42.9 percent, and for this I must post a link to a RWNJ site:
http://www.inquisitr.com/2218523/david-stockman-says-unemployment-is-really-42-9-percent/

How Stockman gets this is by taking the total number of adults in the US and multiply by 40 hours per adult, to arrive at 420 million potential labor hours. (Pay particular attention to that number. It will rear its ugly head very soon.) He then divides the 240 million labor hours the BLS reports into it to determine there is, in fact, 42.9 percent unemployment.

From Mr. Stockman's prognostication we learn a very important lesson, which is: Kindly refrain from smoking blunts before making economic announcements.

This isn't "just like" the Republicans when they do it, this IS the Republicans when they do it.

- Free Beacon
- Daily Caller

That being said "Yes" the unemployment rate is under reported due to classifications. "Yes" there need to be more, and better paying jobs. "Yes" Bernie is right but so is every other pol running for office since they all discuss this.

Imagine todays numbers if the jobs bills, infrastructure bills were allowed to pass by the house.

mobilize against any progress. But that doesn't change today's numbers in his opinion.

I don't support Sanders at all, but he's right on this.

Real unemployment is higher than the numbers are reporting. There's almost 95 million people who either don't have work or don't have enough and I see no reason to pretend otherwise. There's whole lot of people hurting, and it's happened under Obama's administration. I want to hear both of them saying should they get into office they're going to be different, that they're going to take the job seriously, and they'll not allow this to continue.

Since it includes septuagenarians through centenarians, the profoundly disabled, prisoners, a large percentage of HS students, almost all college students, homemakers, retirees on pensions, trust fund babies, criminals, celebrities, trophy spouses, etc.

The idiocy of using the total group of adults 16+ with no upper age limit for any denominator to do with employment astounds me, but many people including some government bureaucracies insist on it. The problem is few people outside the latter can escape the utterly false inference that being substantially below 100% is a bad thing.