Deal reached on unemployment, payroll tax cut

cbs ^ | 2/16/2012 | ap

[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.

[1rudeboy]

If you cannot argue the facts . . . .

[1rudeboy]

That’s what is amusing. They keep returning to it like dogs to vomit. How many times did I have to repeat myself on this thread?

[Brown Deer]

still waiting for you to explain how the unemployment rate is calculated...

I really don’t believe you have a clue.

[1rudeboy]

Oh, so now I don't know how it is calculated? LOL

How about admitting that unemployment compensation has nothing to do with the way the unemployment rate is calculated, for starters.

You do that, and we can begin talking about "how the unemployment rate is calculated."

[Brown Deer]

I guess I was right. You know nothing.

[1rudeboy]

Brilliant response. Completely invalidating everything I’ve stated on this thread to this point. You are the master.

[Brown Deer]

btw moron, you are the only one on this thread that keeps trying to associate unemployment compensation with U-3. Seems like you also have a problem with your basic reading comprehension.

[Brown Deer]

you still haven’t shown anyone that you understand U-3 or how the unemployment rate is calculated. Why do you keep avoiding the question?

[1rudeboy]

Oh, my . . . you need just a little bit of rest to reread the thread. I can't help it if you decide to argue with the voices in your head. Because you certainly are not arguing with me.

Does that happen often? When you are wrong?

[Brown Deer]

[1rudeboy]

Here, I’ll make one more attempt to bring you back from full retard. You ask if I know how U-3 is calcualted, and the answer is yes. Do you understand that unemployment compensation has nothing to do with its calculation?

[Brown Deer]

You ask if I know how U-3 is calcualted, and the answer is yes.

You really do have a problem with your basic reading comprehension. That's too bad. I feel sorry for you.

[1rudeboy]

So, in other words, you admit that unemployment compensation has nothing to do with the way U-3 (or U-6, etc.) is calculated. Thanks.

[Brown Deer]

Please point me to where you read that.

[1rudeboy]

LOL, you’re the expert on U-3, I guess . . . LOLOLOL

[Brown Deer]

It’s about time you admitted that you don’t know what you’re babbling about. So long loser.

[1rudeboy]

Buh bye. See you on the next econ thread.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Most annoying is to correct someone only to see them repeat the same falsehood later. Please pay particular attention to the second paragraph. From the BLS website:

In other words, the website you so helpfully pointed us to says exactly what I was using to come to my conclusion. Thank you for substantiating my statement.

Now, perhaps, you wouldn't have to "correct" people every week if you actually knew what you were talking about, or had the sense to simply mind your own business instead of trying to be a busybody ninny who feels like he has to go around and "correct" everybody all the time.

[1rudeboy]

Like I said, Full Retard. Your statement, that "Because of the way they calculate U3, this (should) ironically make the U3 start shooting back up" [emphasis added], is false.

Unless you do not understand what the word "because" means. I am wondering.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Uh huh. When you finally figure out how to use fractions, come see me.