Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
That's one month of data. Doesn't really say shit.
Edit: Sorry three months, but still not really a significant trend.
Also, what is the connection? It seems like two independent things going on. Is there some relation to employment and disability? Is it a seasonal thing, does disability always spike this time of year? I know it can be pretty tough to get on disability so i don't think people are choosing that over work. Don't see much correlation here.
It's an interesting data point, to be sure, but I'd have to look at it more to decide it it qualifies as disturbing.
Also, hard to pin it as a political post with just the data point. Sure, the source is GOP, but you could use that data against either side in a variety of ways.
Naturally, most of the outlets citing the trend are on the right, blaming it on the "Obama Recovery." I guess it's good that there's a recovery. Cynically, is the Obama Recovery coming after the Bush Recession?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/05/07/246490.htm
An earlier analysis from teh Insurance Journal with deeper stats. Particulalry interesting, and something I'd have to noodle over for a while to fully grasp, is the delayed impact growing disability rolls have on GDP. As long as jobs are scarce, it doesn't really matter- people will be on unemployment, disability, or longer term assistance. The IJ article says, though, that once the economy starts rolling again, we may not be able to beet 2-2.5% growth because we won't have people to do it. Bet we don't have immigration reform, either.
So, maybe the Democrats are the reason we have the growing problem now, but the Republicans are the reason we won't be able to fix it later. Or the Republicnas are the reason we have a recession we can't grow out of now because the Democrats won't reform Medicare. Or it could be that the Democratic Congress in the 80's couldn't get Medicare reforms done with a Republican administration that was focused on budget cutting, leading to reversals in the 90s and bipartisan bickering over healthcare reform that got ignored in the 2000s and have since resurfaced. Of course, if it had been designed correctly in the 60's with an eye towards the politicization that occured through the 70s up to today we wouldn't have this whole mess to begin with.
Or, could be both sides suck and really exist simply to prevent the other side from doing anything.
It's an interesting data point, to be sure, but I'd have to look at it more to decide it it qualifies as disturbing.
Also, hard to pin it as a political post with just the data point. Sure, the source is GOP, but you could use that data against either side in a variety of ways.
Naturally, most of the outlets citing the trend are on the right, blaming it on the "Obama Recovery." I guess it's good that there's a recovery. Cynically, is the Obama Recovery coming after the Bush Recession?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/05/07/246490.htm
An earlier analysis from teh Insurance Journal with deeper stats. Particulalry interesting, and something I'd have to noodle over for a while to fully grasp, is the delayed impact growing disability rolls have on GDP. As long as jobs are scarce, it doesn't really matter- people will be on unemployment, disability, or longer term assistance. The IJ article says, though, that once the economy starts rolling again, we may not be able to beet 2-2.5% growth because we won't have people to do it. Bet we don't have immigration reform, either.
So, maybe the Democrats are the reason we have the growing problem now, but the Republicans are the reason we won't be able to fix it later. Or the Republicnas are the reason we have a recession we can't grow out of now because the Democrats won't reform Medicare. Or it could be that the Democratic Congress in the 80's couldn't get Medicare reforms done with a Republican administration that was focused on budget cutting, leading to reversals in the 90s and bipartisan bickering over healthcare reform that got ignored in the 2000s and have since resurfaced. Of course, if it had been designed correctly in the 60's with an eye towards the politicization that occured through the 70s up to today we wouldn't have this whole mess to begin with.
Or, could be both sides suck and really exist simply to prevent the other side from doing anything.
Real answer. BOTH parties are too afraid to make any concessions to the other, let an idea posed by one party "work" at the expense of the other parties idea.
We do but they run on other party's, Roseane Arnold is running and Ron Paul, but they will not get enough votes to win so weren't stuck with these crappy politicians unless we have a revolution.Real answer. BOTH parties are too afraid to make any concessions to the other, let an idea posed by one party "work" at the expense of the other parties idea. We just need to get some politicians in place who realize that their primary focus has to be to the country 1st and NOT one's caucus 1st.Secondly, we need some politicians who aren't afraid to make the tough choices that need to be made. Right now all that is going on is a constant game of "punting" all at the future expense of our kids and grandkids, and frankly that sucks!
The citation says it was put together by a Republican Senator. That isn't an unbiased source of information and charts can be setup to be 100% factual but paint a misleading or incomplete picture. Instead of being infuriated, find better sources with data that shows the bigger picture.
I guess then... we should never trust any research? Or perhaps, the take away should be not to trust those that have clear outspoken bias. There are many independent organizations that at least TRY to remain impartial and unbiased and work with researchers that are represent a multitude of viewpoints to eliminate the most offensive of bias and agenda. All I am saying is never take any representative of a political party's data (or politically motivated think tanks) at face value or use it as a cry of outrage. And that goes for either side of an issue, not just picking on GOP.They all have agendas.
I guess then... we should never trust any research? Or perhaps, the take away should be not to trust those that have clear outspoken bias. There are many independent organizations that at least TRY to remain impartial and unbiased and work with researchers that are represent a multitude of viewpoints to eliminate the most offensive of bias and agenda. All I am saying is never take any representative of a political party's data (or politically motivated think tanks) at face value or use it as a cry of outrage. And that goes for either side of an issue, not just picking on GOP.
It is not possible to be completely unbiased. My point was that this data at face value is very scary.