Poll - Obama speech

[Tom]

What will his speech be next week?

[newtothegame]

Where's the "all of the above" button?????
lol

[HUSKER55]

ya know it can't be good and he doesn't want to give it. BO caved in to Boehner again. Who is running what? Obviously any points he had were a shot in the dark or he would be thumping his chest shouting from the rooftops.

[Mike at A+]

Where's undefinable non-specifics? In other words, pie in the sky hope and change?

[lamboguy]

he is probably going to do some give away program for home loans. but i have no idea what good it will do if people don't have jobs to pay for their homes.

obama has no clue, and no idea how to lead people. not to much different than his predecessor.

my main problem with this guy is he made promises to be different and all he did was lie like a rug. he deals to the money, and money corrupts.

they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, i don't think this guy ever had good intentions.

when you look at the way he got in, he beat a pretty strong candidate in hillary clinton, and then he won a landslide against another strong candidate for the whole election. its just goes to show you that the majority of people here are dumb assed stupid people. even the college students that gave him their votes are dumb. that is the real sad part here, the going forward part is scary, if those people are the potential leaders in the future,what chance do we really have.

[hcap]

You forgot to include:

o-Turning to rethugs and shouting YOU LIE!

[elysiantraveller]

he is probably going to do some give away program for home loans. but i have no idea what good it will do if people don't have jobs to pay for their homes.

obama has no clue, and no idea how to lead people. not to much different than his predecessor.

my main problem with this guy is he made promises to be different and all he did was lie like a rug. he deals to the money, and money corrupts.

they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, i don't think this guy ever had good intentions.

when you look at the way he got in, he beat a pretty strong candidate in hillary clinton, and then he won a landslide against another strong candidate for the whole election. its just goes to show you that the majority of people here are dumb assed stupid people. even the college students that gave him their votes are dumb. that is the real sad part here, the going forward part is scary, if those people are the potential leaders in the future,what chance do we really have.

I agree... Its going to be a call to bi-partisanship speech.

Must say though I am impressed thats a lot of typing without a reference to gold! :cool:

[lamboguy]

I agree... Its going to be a call to bi-partisanship speech.

Must say though I am impressed thats a lot of typing without a reference to gold! :cool:
gold is speaking loud and clear about this stupid speech, its up over $50 with the dow down over 200 as of 10:00 a.m. this morning.

[hcap]

Makes very little difference WHAT he proposes it's obvious it's going to be blocked by the rethugs.
The only thing that can be done is to use powers within the executive branch to initiate something. But it won't be enough and the rethugs will make political hay of another rethug caused political bottleneck and blame Obama.

[elysiantraveller]

gold is speaking loud and clear about this stupid speech, its up over $50 with the dow down over 200 as of 10:00 a.m. this morning.

There it is!

[Let's Roll]

Whatever he has to say, I have no interest in hearing it. The sound of his voice disgusts me.

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/gop_leaders_stop_taking_credit031960.php


Here’s a chart showing private-sector job creation in the latter half of 2010, when stimulus money was still being spent, and when Democrats enjoyed the congressional majority.

http://wamo.info/pa/110708_beforeGOP.jpg

And here’s a chart showing private-sector job creation so far in 2011, after stimulus spending largely ended, Republicans took control of the U.S. House and most of the nation’s gubernatorial offices, and the national discourse pivoted from jobs to the deficit and debt.

http://wamo.info/pa/110902_afterGOP.jpg

[Tom]

How many new net jobs in August?

0

I guess the moron should have given his stupid speech BEFORE he went on vacation. At least we now know his priorities.

[tonto1944]

He is gonna bring in the Pres. of GE and have him straighten it out. And in the end besides his Company not paying any TAXES , the tax payers are gonna give him more money so he can ship more jobs out of the USA.
Obama has surrounded himself with a bunch of blooming idiots. So he fits right in with them....

[Greyfox]

Makes very little difference WHAT he proposes it's obvious it's going to be blocked by the rethugs.
The only thing that can be done is to use powers within the executive branch to initiate something. But it won't be enough and the rethugs will make political hay of another rethug caused political bottleneck and blame Obama.

I think that you have called this one right hcap.:ThmbUp:
He will propose spending that will be "resisted" by the Republicans and he knows that.
His intent will be to make the Republicans look like they are putting their Party before Country. This will serve the dual purposes of:
1. giving his Campaign traction
2. putting Republicans in an unfavorable light

The speech is a key part of his Campaign Strategy.
He'll talk about creating jobs, but that is not the main reason for the speech at this time. He had 3 years to work on that problem and showed no interest in it. All of a sudden jobs is his priority.
Unfortunately, many will believe him and forgive the inadequacies that he has shown to date. Actually, it's a pretty astute strategic move.

[Mike at A+]

ZERO JOBS CREATED LAST MONTH. FU**ING ZERO!

Last time that happened??? 1945

[hcap]

ZERO JOBS CREATED LAST MONTH. FU**ING ZERO!

Last time that happened??? 1945

Wrong as usual.
You forgot the dismal Bush record. O ain't as bad as minus 750,000

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6088811219_7177d24faa.jpg

[riskman]

I think that you have called this one right hcap.:ThmbUp:
He will propose spending that will be "resisted" by the Republicans and he knows that.
His intent will be to make the Republicans look like they are putting their Party before Country. This will serve the dual purposes of:
1. giving his Campaign traction
2. putting Republicans in an unfavorable light

The speech is a key part of his Campaign Strategy.
He'll talk about creating jobs, but that is not the main reason for the speech at this time. He had 3 years to work on that problem and showed no interest in it. All of a sudden jobs is his priority.
Unfortunately, many will believe him and forgive the inadequacies that he has shown to date. Actually, it's a pretty astute strategic move.
Greyfox is right on the money, especially the campaign speech which by the way has not stopped since the swearing in ceremony.

[Tom]

Obama has only two choices for his re-infection campaign.
Fix the economy, which he cannot possible do with his moronic economic policies. The other is to keep it bad and somehow blame it on the repubs.


And, not only were there 0 net jobs created in August, the June.July figures
were revised downward 58,000.

Yer doing a heck of a job, there, Barry.

[boxcar]

You forgot to include:

o-Turning to rethugs and shouting YOU LIE!

And the "rethugs" wouldn't be lying, would they?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I think that you have called this one right hcap.:ThmbUp:
He will propose spending that will be "resisted" by the Republicans and he knows that.
His intent will be to make the Republicans look like they are putting their Party before Country. This will serve the dual purposes of:
1. giving his Campaign traction
2. putting Republicans in an unfavorable light

The speech is a key part of his Campaign Strategy.
He'll talk about creating jobs, but that is not the main reason for the speech at this time. He had 3 years to work on that problem and showed no interest in it. All of a sudden jobs is his priority.
Unfortunately, many will believe him and forgive the inadequacies that he has shown to date. Actually, it's a pretty astute strategic move.

Exactly right! This is what Rush predicted last week, and I posted on another thread that I agreed with his assessment.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

How many new net jobs in August?

0

I guess the moron should have given his stupid speech BEFORE he went on vacation. At least we now know his priorities.


There was a gain of 17,000 jobs in the private sector.
That was offset by a loss of 17,000 jobs in the public sector.
Since the start of the year we have gained 891,000 private sector jobs.
That has been offset by the loss of 204,000 public sector jobs.
The loss of public sector jobs can be laid directly at the doorstep of the Republicans. In other words, the recovery would have been about 23% better had it not been for Republican insistence on cutting government.

[Greyfox]

That has been offset by the loss of 204,000 public sector jobs.


204,000 jobs is a lot.
Can you name any that were absolutely necessary? Even one?

[hcap]

Exactly right! This is what Rush predicted last week, and I posted on another thread that I agreed with his assessment.

So let me get this straight, last week you were Moses, now El Gasbag is John the Baptist?

God does works in mysterious ways.

[HUSKER55]

MORE government jobs means more taxpayer expense. Therefore any increase in government jobs creates more to the debt.

[newtothegame]

There was a gain of 17,000 jobs in the private sector.
That was offset by a loss of 17,000 jobs in the public sector.
Since the start of the year we have gained 891,000 private sector jobs.
That has been offset by the loss of 204,000 public sector jobs.
The loss of public sector jobs can be laid directly at the doorstep of the Republicans. In other words, the recovery would have been about 23% better had it not been for Republican insistence on cutting government.
And here I always thought it was "those BIG" bad private sector businesses....:bang:
Seems your NANNY is causing the problem lol

[boxcar]

So let me get this straight, last week you were Moses, now El Gasbag is John the Baptist?

God does works in mysterious ways.

More like the prophet Elijah, since you asked. However, El Rushbo's "prophecies" have come to fruition only 99.6% of the time.

And, yes, when God created me, he broke the mold. Unlike, Rush, my talents have been permanently gifted to me. :)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

There was a gain of 17,000 jobs in the private sector.
That was offset by a loss of 17,000 jobs in the public sector.
Since the start of the year we have gained 891,000 private sector jobs.
That has been offset by the loss of 204,000 public sector jobs.
The loss of public sector jobs can be laid directly at the doorstep of the Republicans. In other words, the recovery would have been about 23% better had it not been for Republican insistence on cutting government.

I would to God that we'd lose another 204,000 public sector jobs just to experience the stimulus rush of all the additional unemployment bennies.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

204,000 jobs is a lot.
Can you name any that were absolutely necessary? Even one?

All of them, because they were jobs. People were earning a living. If they were not necessary, then why were they established in the first place. If they eliminate a teacher's job to save a few thousand dollars, some children do not get as good an education as they should. If they take away a policeman's job, citizens do not receive the protection they should. If they take away a job at the DMV, I would have had to wait an hour this morning instead of only fifteen minutes. (BTW. Props to the Illinois Secretary of States office. I went to renew my drivers license and although there were forty to fifty people in the office, there were sufficient employees, there were enough seats, the wait at each station was brief and the employees were courteous and friendly. I know it's not proper to say nice things about the DMV-but there it is.)

[mostpost]

And here I always thought it was "those BIG" bad private sector businesses....:bang:
Seems your NANNY is causing the problem lol
You obviously missed the point of my post. Again. :rolleyes:
In simple words:
Private Sector jobs are increasing-have been since early 2009. The stimulus is working. As many jobs were created during the first two and one half years of the Obama administration as were created during the entire Bush administration.
Public sector jobs are diminishing due to draconian cuts by states like Wisconsin and Texas and New Jersey and Ohio. The Bush recession put a lot of people out of work and caused a lot of businesses to drop. The resulting loss of tax revenues forced governments to reduce their staffs. Governors like Walker and Christie and Kasich and Perry and Scott used this to push their conservative agenda.

[hcap]

More like the prophet Elijah, since you asked. However, El Rushbo's "prophecies" have come to fruition only 99.6% of the time.

And, yes, when God created me, he broke the mold. Unlike, Rush, my talents have been permanently gifted to me. :)

And unlike El Gasbag you re humble.

[Greyfox]

All of them, because they were jobs. People were earning a living. If they were not necessary, then why were they established in the first place.

Private business expands due to necessity to meet a demand. It contracts when the demand decreases.

Government doesn't work that way. It may expand initially to provide a service, but when the service is no longer required, it doesn't contract.
Why? Because it doesn't need to. The public trough will supply it.
Therein lies the problem with Public Service, including the Post Office.

Businesses that continually run deficits ultimately become bankrupt and fade away.
That's not the case with the Public Service.
So many people are dissatisfied with Washington due to the fact that Government needs to be run more like a business.
Spending a trillion dollars over budget year in and year out places the U.S. in a very precarious position. It cannot continue on that path.
If I ran my home that way incurring debts year after year, I'd soon be out on the street.
Essentially, today, the U.S. Government is the "brokest" government on the planet. If it isn't, tell us who has more debt.

The next President will have to deal with that fact. Revenue isn't the problem.
Spending is.
Saying "All jobs are necessary because they were created" represents the type of faulty thinking that has led the U.S. economy to the brink of disaster.

[Tom]

Private business expands due to necessity to meet a demand. It contracts when the demand decreases.

Government doesn't work that way. It may expand initially to provide a service, but when the service is no longer required, it doesn't contract.
Why? Because it doesn't need to. The public trough will supply it.
Therein lies the problem with Public Service, including the Post Office.

Home run, GF.....Fox just ran a story this week about the millions of dollars wasted at the USPS having people sit on their butts in break room when there is no work for them. Public service is always a waste of money. Better to outsource everything to profit-driven companies who will get the job done far better and cheaper.

[boxcar]

And unlike El Gasbag you re humble.

Exactly. But the next time I see him, I plan on talking to him about that. ;)

Boxcar

[hcap]

Exactly. But the next time I see him, I plan on talking to him about that. ;)

Will be the loudest shouting match in recorded history

El Gasbag vs El Brimstone bag?
Rumble of the Humble?

Yep I like Rumble of the Humble :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

The next President will have to deal with that fact. Revenue isn't the problem.
Spending is.
.

Greyfox, if you believe that to be a fact, I believe you are wrong. Of all the private businesses you claim to wish the government would run like, which ones would ever claim lack of revenue was not part of whatever serious problem they had?

[Greyfox]

Greyfox, if you believe that to be a fact, I believe you are wrong. Of all the private businesses you claim to wish the government would run like, which ones would ever claim lack of revenue was not part of whatever serious problem they had?

Government doesn't have a lack of revenue problem. Question not applicable. Next.

[NJ Stinks]

Government doesn't have a lack of revenue problem. Question not applicable. Next.

One of us has his head in the sand.

[Tom]

One of us has his head in the sand.

Let's see, it is not GF, so that leaves.........

Let me give you an example.
Say I bring home $400 a week.
I buy a Cadilac, an ATV, a yacht, plan a vacation in the Bahamas, go to Vegas every month, and eat Porterhouse steaks for dinner every night. I spend $1500 a week on my lifestyle.

Do I have a revenue problem?

[hcap]

Let's see, it is not GF, so that leaves.........

Let me give you an example.
Say I bring home $400 a week.
I buy a Cadilac, an ATV, a yacht, plan a vacation in the Bahamas, go to Vegas every month, and eat Porterhouse steaks for dinner every night. I spend $1500 a week on my lifestyle.

Do I have a revenue problem?Sure you do, but if that were the case your computer would have been repossessed years and 50,000 posts ago and we would not be reading this last drivel or any earlier drivel. :lol:

Btw, where is the skate/English dictionary?

And while your at it look up deficit spending and the history of how until recently we ran deficits that were acceptable, and how the Bankers/Bush recession reduced revenues worldwide. Your analogy exaggerates the numbers and misses the financial sector as the real culprits. So if you had a mortgage and car payments, most of us could include long term debt with proper budgeting for that long term debt. But when financial institutions gambled and lost (hey 30 to 1 leverage. Little chance of loss) it changed the ground rules of many long term budgets. So it wasn't so much the kind of idiot that you describe and also exaggerate, it was the assholes that adopted a new role. Casino gamblers

[Greyfox]

Tom "gets it." So far the penny has failed to drop for Government though ( and at this point we are talking about them, not Wall Street crap shooters).

[Tom]

To blindly accept that we can spend more than we take in every single yer and have no idea whatsoever how to ever pay it back is lunacy.
hcap, I do not exaggerate at all.

[hcap]

We know how to pay it back. Clinton proved that
The Bush/Banker recession is what blew up the world. Austerity the way the TPers have blackmailed the government for is crap.

[fast4522]

We as a people can not spend more than we take in, at some point the fat lady has to sing. There is no more money left and those who participate in our political process have to obey the people who sent them to Washington. For anyone to suggest that we as a people are not divided sharply on these issues are flat out liars who are out of touch with reality. The housing bubble that has occurred and damaged several economies in many countries was coming for a long time. We still can save the American way of life, but socialism is likely to bear the brunt of the repairs. Call it what you like, the knife is coming.

[NJ Stinks]

Let's see, it is not GF, so that leaves.........

Let me give you an example.
Say I bring home $400 a week.
I buy a Cadilac, an ATV, a yacht, plan a vacation in the Bahamas, go to Vegas every month, and eat Porterhouse steaks for dinner every night. I spend $1500 a week on my lifestyle.

Do I have a revenue problem?

Let me give you an example.
Say I bring home $19,230 a week. (Yep. I'm a millionaire.)
I buy a Cadilac, an ATV, a yacht, plan a vacation in the Bahamas, go to Vegas every month, and eat Porterhouse steaks for dinner every night. I spend $1500 a week on my lifestyle.

Unfortunately, I also have spend $3,076 a week on federal income taxes because my average income tax bill after all deductions, capital gains tax rates, etc. comes to 16% of my annual income.

Do I have a spending problem? Do I have a tax problem? Am I paying my fair share of country's tax burden? Who cares? I'm living the American Dream! :jump: And that's more important than the country's stinkin' National Debt.

If you don't believe me, ask the Republican Party.

[Greyfox]

Let me give you an example.
Say I bring home $19,230 a week. (Yep. I'm a millionaire.)
I buy a Cadilac, an ATV, a yacht, plan a vacation in the Bahamas, go to Vegas every month, and eat Porterhouse steaks for dinner every night. I spend $1500 a week on my lifestyle.

Unfortunately, I also have spend $3,076 a week on federal income taxes because my average income tax bill after all deductions, capital gains tax rates, etc. comes to 16% of my annual income.

Do I have a spending problem? Do I have a tax problem? Am I paying my fair share of country's tax burden? Who cares? I'm living the American Dream! :jump: And that's more important than the country's stinkin' National Debt.

If you don't believe me, ask the Republican Party.

You are sleeping and dreaming.

You are also diverting the fact that spending more than you take in ultimately leads to being in a hole.
'
In the Government's instance that is a big hole.
Wakey. Wakey.
Your Children and Grandchildren will have to pay the debt, assuming you don't.

.http://images.free-extras.com/pics/s/sleeping_and_dreaming-1727.jpg

[Tom]

NJ, I hope you are happy your dream world.

[toetoe]

If they were not necessary, then why were they established in the first place.



I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Pundit though you be, you really do not know. Bliss unto you.

[PaceAdvantage]

Wrong as usual.
You forgot the dismal Bush record. O ain't as bad as minus 750,000

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6088811219_7177d24faa.jpgSo why are O's numbers in the shitter and the country as a whole going in the wrong direction?

Why isn't your chart translating into a better tomorrow?

As the old lady used to ask, "Where's the beef?"

[hcap]

Simply because it is not enough to get us out of the hole the Bush/Bankers team put us in. The stimulus helped as did other Obama policies.

Structural changes in the labor market since before Bush is what makes this recovery different than earlier recessions. This also is the WORST economic downturn since the Depression.

Look at that graph again. Imagine if the trend line of Bushs' last 5 months had continued. Then ask your question again

[bigmack]

Look at that graph again. Imagine if the trend line of Bushs' last 5 months had continued. Then ask your question again
Do you ever stop to wonder why you're know as GraphMan 'round these parts?

Good grief. Give graphs a rest or an intervention is in order.

[hcap]

I guess graph-o-mania is catching on. PA re posted my graph, and you stooped to your usual and complained about it. Good to know I can make difference

signed
H. Graph

[Greyfox]

Simply because it is not enough to get us out of the hole the Bush/Bankers team put us in. The stimulus helped as did other Obama policies.




The "stimulus" was supposed to create permanent jobs.
It didn't.
Bush's mistake was that by giving a stimulus he gave Obama permission to follow suit. (Where one fool can go, another can surely follow.)

Now those promised jobs did not materialize. The current job crisis puts the nation in a worse mess than the debt ceiling crisis.

Obama's policies helped??? Surely you jest. They helped weaken a great nation, which is starting to look like his main intent in the first place.
If he gets another term in office, he'll be able to wreck it completely.
The Democrats absolutely need a primary.

[riskman]

The Democrats absolutely need a primary.

So many Americans are now being hit by job losses sagging incomes and declining home values that the voting public in both parties are looking for ideas to head us in the right direction If it means a challenge to the president in the Democratic primaries, so be it, but of course it is all about fund raising so it may be necessary that a different alternative be taken ie., third party to get the message across.

[fast4522]

Just a sample of today's headlines, and just more bad news for a lightweight President. The problem is not that complex, you know where you are and you know where you want to be. This President is not looking to be where most are looking which is the straight line shortest distance between. It is his view and agenda of where he wants us to be, and so shall he be dammed for it.

[RaceBookJoe]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/topsecretamerica/top-cia-official-obama-changed-virtually-none-of-bushs-controversial-programs/

[PaceAdvantage]

Simply because it is not enough to get us out of the hole the Bush/Bankers team put us in. The stimulus helped as did other Obama policies.

Structural changes in the labor market since before Bush is what makes this recovery different than earlier recessions. This also is the WORST economic downturn since the Depression.

Look at that graph again. Imagine if the trend line of Bushs' last 5 months had continued. Then ask your question againIt's funny...that graph you posted...on the left side, it's labeled "Republican Policies."

But, for much of that graph (it's very small, so it's tough to make out exactly), wasn't that happening during total control of CONGRESS by DEMOCRATS?

Yes, I do indeed think that graph could be labeled "FULLY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS" instead...

Interesting...funny how we started to go positive right around the time Republicans wrested back control of the House...

Yes, statistics and graphs are indeed interesting things, aren't they hcap?

[Tom]

Interesting...funny how we started to go positive right around the time Republicans wrested back control of the House...

Indeed!

[HUSKER55]

OOPS! why ruin a graph with facts?

[hcap]

Interesting...funny how we started to go positive right around the time Republicans wrested back control of the House...

Yes, statistics and graphs are indeed interesting things, aren't they hcap?Indeed!OOPS! why ruin a graph with facts?
US Congress opens under Democratic control
7 January 2009

The 111th Congress opened Tuesday with the Democratic Party in firm control of both houses. Democrats in the November 4 elections.


Rethugs did not take it until The 2010 midterm election Held on Tuesday, Nov. 2. On Jan 2011 they proceeded to hold the house hostage.

You gentlemen are simply brightly colored parrots. Polly want a Tea Biscuit?

[JBmadera]

more mindless drivel from an incompetent dolt.

[PaceAdvantage]

US Congress opens under Democratic control
7 January 2009

The 111th Congress opened Tuesday with the Democratic Party in firm control of both houses. Democrats in the November 4 elections.


Rethugs did not take it until The 2010 midterm election Held on Tuesday, Nov. 2. On Jan 2011 they proceeded to hold the house hostage.

You gentlemen are simply brightly colored parrots. Polly want a Tea Biscuit?No retort about the downward slide being during the time of Democrat control of the Congress?...January 2007...way before your graph even begins it's wicked little dive?

Polly wanna cwacker?

[elysiantraveller]

No retort about the downward slide being during the time of Democrat control of the Congress?...January 2007...way before your graph even begins it's wicked little dive?

Polly wanna cwacker?

These graphs are completely absurd.

Charted data is not supposed to draw conclusions when it does it is no longer data it is propaganda.

"Republican Policies" is a pretty broad brushstroke. Does that include the first stimulus issued by the Bush Administation or TARP.

HCap also posted this chart:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_deficit_bush_obama.jpg

Where TARP and the first stimulus are use to blame Bush for the current deficit.

So now in one chart furthering hcaps position we see that Republicans are guilty of the deficit by policies such as the stimulus and TARP... But another chart credits stimulus driven job growth entirely to the Obama/Stimulus.

Its propaganda not data and in this case its hypocritical as one table blatantly contradicts the other.

[hcap]

There is nothing wrong with this chart. Nor is it propaganda. The jobs trend recovery clearly coincides with Obama.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6088811219_7177d24faa.jpg

Bush sent out $152 billion in stimulus checks. He then at the end of the year with a bait/switch bailout package costing $700 billion. Bait/switch because it was supposed to be the repurchase of toxic debt to free up the financial system, and ended up being investment money and 'bonus' money to Wall St.. It sucked big time.



The Obama stimulus was more successful.


http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_peak_unemployment.jpg

The earlier chaer charted facts. The New York Times, the source of the chart, attributed programs correctly to each administration

[Tom]

It started going under dem control of both houses and started goin down right after the TPs took back the house.

Thanks, hcap, good reporting.

[elysiantraveller]

There is nothing wrong with this chart. Nor is it propaganda. The jobs trend recovery clearly coincides with Obama.

When graphs use vague descriptive terms like "Republican Policies," "The 'Stimulus,'' (Hell they even put that one in quotations) and "Stimulus winds down," its propaganda to further a point of view. None of those can be quantified within the data so they get generalized statements to support their point of view.

The point I am trying to get at is your Data is CONSTANTLY biased.

I'm not arguing with the actual numbers on the data as I agree with them but lets take this graph as an example. The numbers come from the BLS, I agree with them as the I feel the BLS is a good place to get such data from. The data is then picked up, in this case, by The Office of the Democratic Leader who slaps some labels on it (The ones I mentioned above) and now its a propaganda piece thats pro-stimulus and Obama.

[hcap]

The point I am trying to get at is your Data is CONSTANTLY biased.

I'm not arguing with the actual numbers on the data as I agree with them but lets take this graph as an example. The numbers come from the BLS, I agree with them as the I feel the BLS is a good place to get such data from. The data is then picked up, in this case, by The Office of the Democratic Leader who slaps some labels on itBull

If you have no contention with the data, but you take issue with the presentation, the original chart is available on the BLS site. I posted that as well.

The jobs chart although picked up by the The Office of the Democratic Leader did not alter the data. Nor the message of the chart. The embellishments are minor and just enough license was taken to highlight the message. It is abundantly clear from the original chart on BLS site.

The chart I just posted backs up or at least gives support as to what policy preceded the change in jobs trend.

And I repeat the NWE YORK TIMES got it right and it's data source was the CBO. Once again you nay dispute the presentation, but once again the message is clear. And that chart fills in the analysis of where most of the blame falls.

[elysiantraveller]

The jobs chart although picked up by the The Office of the Democratic Leader did not alter the data. Nor the message of the chart. The embellishments are minor and just enough license was taken to highlight the message. It is abundantly clear from the original chart on BLS site.

So now it's "embellished" unbiased data? :lol:

Nope certainly not propaganda!

Do tell where the message of th chart was "stimulus spending is responsible for job growth."

Or was that just a unbiased embellishment?

[bigmack]

So now it's "embellished" unbiased data? :lol:

Nope certainly not propaganda!
It's his specialty: meaningless graphs. Ready yourself for being called blind & a 'flat-earther' as you're unwilling to buy into his dopey little graphs, not unlike he's done with AGW for years.

It borders on pathetic as you'd think he was smarter than that. No dice. Turns out he just doesn't have the mental ability to figure out his charts are complete BS.

Poor him. :(

[hcap]

So now it's "embellished" unbiased data? :lol:

Nope certainly not propaganda!

Do tell where the message of th chart was "stimulus spending is responsible for job growth."

Or was that just a unbiased embellishment?


Do tell where the message of th chart was "stimulus spending is responsible for job growth."

You did not read what I said. I did say"
The chart I just posted backs up or at least gives support as to what policy preceded the change in jobs trend.
Ths last chart I posted supporting the Obama stimulas

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_peak_unemployment.jpg

The "embellished" chart you think is propaganda
From The Dem Leader

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6088811219_7177d24faa.jpg



The jobs chart from the BLS

[hcap]

It's his specialty: meaningless graphs. Ready yourself for being called blind & a 'flat-earther' as you're unwilling to buy into his dopey little graphs, not unlike he's done with AGW for years.

It borders on pathetic as you'd think he was smarter than that. No dice. Turns out he just doesn't have the mental ability to figure out his charts are complete BS.

Poor him. :(Hey burger Boy, you don't remember. I posted the BLS chart ORIGINALLY because you ALSO said the Dem leader lied. Last week.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86826&page=2

Now after giving up ,and ducking with your tail between your legs, you come back on-- behind another who at least makes an effort. You can not even fight your own battles and use a newbee to crack your same shit. Weak, dunb, and dripping with little cheap envelopes of burger slop

[bigmack]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86826&page=2

Now after giving up ,and ducking with your tail between your legs, you come back on-- behind another who at least makes an effort. You can not even fight your own battles and use a newbee to crack your same shit. Weak, dunb, and dripping with little cheap envelopes of burger slop
Listen good, Dipshit. Don't even consider moving in the direction you are.

You're completely lying about what I brought up in that thread and you know it. I targeted the CBO. Do me a solid and show me where I, how did you put it, "you ALSO said the Dem leader lied." Go ahead and show me where I said that in that thread.

Until then you blatantly lied and owe me an apology.

Let's see who has a tail between their leg.

[Tom]

Tony Wiener does.
Oh, wait....that's not a tail.

[Mike at A+]

I read Mitt Romney's plan today. A very good start to getting Americans back to work. And by golly, he put the whole thing together in the time it takes to go on a vacation and play a few rounds of golf. But then again, Mitt's literate and can get ideas down on paper without the aid of a teleprompter.

[cj's dad]

I read Mitt Romney's plan today. A very good start to getting Americans back to work. And by golly, he put the whole thing together in the time it takes to go on a vacation and play a few rounds of golf. But then again, Mitt's literate and can get ideas down on paper without the aid of a teleprompter.

Isn't it amazing how good old common sense can negate the need for self serving user driven charts and graphs ??

Keep 'em comin' Mostie and Cap- you guys are a laugh a minute.

[newtothegame]

Obama Looking at $300 Billion Jobs Plan



Tuesday, 06 Sep 2011 07:19 PM








WASHINGTON (AP) — People familiar with the White House deliberations on a jobs package say President Barack Obama is considering a plan totaling about $300 billion in tax cuts and spending for 2012.
Two of the biggest measures are expected to be a one-year extension of a payroll tax cut for workers and a continuation of unemployment benefits. Those items would total about $170 billion.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ObamaJobs-Package/2011/09/06/id/409969

[hcap]

Listen good, Dipshit. Don't even consider moving in the direction you are.

You're completely lying about what I brought up in that thread and you know it. I targeted the CBO. Do me a solid and show me where I, how did you put it, "you ALSO said the Dem leader lied." Go ahead and show me where I said that in that thread.

Until then you blatantly lied and owe me an apology.

Let's see who has a tail between their leg.I owe you zero. Yes, I forgot it wasn't you it was lsbets that brought up the "The Office of the Democratic Leader" as falsefying the jobs chart. You on the other hand raised an issue a few times more inane.You BABBLED
1- How come an estimate is not an exact value?
2--The CBO is a Partisan lying POS, and as proof cited an opinion piece by a transparent rightie Partisan columnist.

Absurd that you didn't understand ESTIMATE, and more absurd that the CBO was in the DEMS pocket. I answered both you and lsbets.
You guys are a riot. First you bitch that the jobs table was slanted by the DEMS, and when I get the original from the Labor Department, which shows other than some minor embellishments by the DEM leader-the table I posted was fairly accurate.

Then you bitch that the CBO had too broad a range in their estimate. I deflated that whining by simply repeating why it WAS A FREAKIN" ESTIMATE, and even so still puts the stimulus way ahead in positive territory.

Now lacking any real data you attack the CBO as a house organ of the DEMS. You post a non- critical article written by a conservative commentator. And only a opinion piece. The fact remains that while you dunderheads post garbage from Faux, WorldNutDaily and Limpbag, the left here on PA does a much better job of dealing with facts.

The CBO may not be perfect, but both houses of congress, the press, and most rational observers use the CBO as the standard. I could dig up many critiques of the CBO showing just the opposite of your babble.


That's when you both turned tail and dropped the matter. Now you wait until elysiantraveller raise the same point as last week, (that's cool, he was not in the discussion), YOU WERE, as though it never ever happened. So it validates my suspicion that your steady diet of faulty info and super-size me junk FAUX NOOS, has brought on dementia.

[lsbets]

That's when you both turned tail and dropped the matter. Now you wait until elysiantraveller raise the same point as last week, (that's cool, he was not in the discussion), YOU WERE, as though it never ever happened. So it validates my suspicion that your steady diet of faulty info and super-size me junk FAUX NOOS, has brought on dementia.

No, I asked if you would apply your standard to a chart from Heritage - based on data from BLS. By your standard that chart should be accepted as the gospel truth.

Typical of you, when your hypocrisy is revealed, you moved on to something else to bitch about. Only in your demented mind would you think anyone but you had dropped the matter.

[hcap]

No, I asked if you would apply your standard to a chart from Heritage - based on data from BLS. By your standard that chart should be accepted as the gospel truth.

Typical of you, when your hypocrisy is revealed, you moved on to something else to bitch about. Only in your demented mind would you think anyone but you had dropped the matter.
I said
The source is correct check the original from the Labor Department.

And then I posted the original FROM the BLS. That is a very straight answer. I supported the second chart with the Original. If and when Heritage does something similar I would expect you gentlemen to do the same if questioned. So I "moved on" to the evidence, not something else.
Once again you come up short, and try for a distraction by shouting hypocrite.

[lsbets]

Once again I will ask. Going by your standard, will you accept as true a chart from Heritage based on the same BLS data showing that job creation slowed dramatically after the passage of Obamacare? That is my question that you keep dodging.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/economic-recovery-stalled-after-obamacare-passed

There's more than a chart there, you have to read to, which might be a challenge since you normally prefer your information in cartoon format.

Bottom line - before April 2010 job growth +67,500 a month, after April 2010 only 6500 a month. From the same data you tout.

[hcap]

Once again I will ask. Going by your standard, will you accept as true a chart from Heritage based on the same BLS data showing that job creation slowed dramatically after the passage of Obamacare? That is my question that you keep dodging.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/economic-recovery-stalled-after-obamacare-passed

There's more than a chart there, you have to read to, which might be a challenge since you normally prefer your information in cartoon format.

Bottom line - before April 2010 job growth +67,500 a month, after April 2010 only 6500 a month. From the same data you tout.I have absolutely no objection to anyone willing to add substance to the discussion. I will expect you however to make a cogent argument. And since your objection in a nutshell is I used partisan manipulated data, show me where where the Heritage chart demonstrates that contention.

I read the article, looked at their chart. Go ahead. If you have difficulty hot linking I will be happy to do it for you.

Just be careful of what you wish for in your rush to brand me a hypocrite. In fact I will give you a chance to reconsider going down this road. Hint: The name of your Heritage article is "Recovery Stalled After Obamacare Passed"

[lsbets]

My point - which I am nut surprised you missed is this:

You used a chart from the office of the dem leader and said their interpretation had to be correct because it was based on data from the BLS. I showed you a chart from Heritage based on the same data. Going by your standards you should take the Heritage information as factual.

Both are partisan interpretations of data. You don't seem to understand that.

[hcap]

My point - which I am nut surprised you missed is this:

You used a chart from the office of the dem leader and said their interpretation had to be correct because it was based on data from the BLS.
When questioned, I supported my case that the chart from "The Office of The Democratic Leader" which yes was based on the BLS data was substantially an accurate representation of that data by posting the original chart from the BLS. I took your criticism seriously and tried to answer seriously. I did not move on to something else non-material to your objection. I answered it.

Your Heritage chart is substantially the same, but narrows the focus to what happened after "Obamacare". The original chart from the BLS and the Dem leader empathize the stimulus effect on jobs but also shows the slow down in job creation after "Obamacare", and more importantly includes the dismal performance of Bushs' last 6 months, giving a comparison of both administrations. All three charts are similar. So although you maintain the Dem Leader misrepresented the BLS stats, he did not. It was the Heritage foundation in fact that did just that by leaving out the awful bush end times and focusing on "Obamacare"

[bigmack]

2--The CBO is a Partisan lying POS, and as proof cited an opinion piece by a transparent rightie Partisan columnist.
Oh really, is that what it said? If you weren't so full of crap and so busy trying to keep an idiotic D/R scoreboard you might actually bump into a truth every now and again.

Go and reread what I posted re: CBO:
it had shown itself “flexible” in being able to appease whatever majority happened to be in control of the CBO.
Does that point a finger in any one direction?

The reason most don't engage with you in debate is because you're a completely dishonest child who is so filled with partisan hate that each and every one of your positions have a discernibly putrid stench/

[elysiantraveller]

My point - which I am nut surprised you missed is this:

You used a chart from the office of the dem leader and said their interpretation had to be correct because it was based on data from the BLS. I showed you a chart from Heritage based on the same data. Going by your standards you should take the Heritage information as factual.

Both are partisan interpretations of data. You don't seem to understand that.

Glad someone is on the same page as me.

There is the scientific method where you draw a hypothesis, create a experiment, and then collect data to either support or disprove your hypothesis. You don't take data and commit post hoc ergo propter hoc.

In this case when trying to prove a point you should use data to support your argument and not make it for you. In the Heritage and the Democratic its people taking data and trying to make it say something it wasn't never meant to say.

At least the Heritage guy doesn't post a graph and say see I was right.

[hcap]

Glad someone is on the same page as me.

There is the scientific method where you draw a hypothesis, create a experiment, and then collect data to either support or disprove your hypothesis. You don't take data and commit post hoc ergo propter hoc.

There are 2 major points that the DEM leader chart tries to make.

1-Job losses which were awful under Bush decreased and were totally turned around when the new administration took office. Can we prove conclusively that there was cause and effect? No, but it is convincing enough and not a leap of logic.

2-The words (I agree, suppositions) written in on the right of the chart-- "The Stimulus--The Stimulus Winds Down" dos correspond to when Stimulus funds were first issued. Cause and effect, perhaps less convincing the a simple observation of change in administration, but a reasonable explanation. Supported by many economists and specifically the CBO.

In this case when trying to prove a point you should use data to support your argument and not make it for you. In the Heritage and the Democratic its people taking data and trying to make it say something it wasn't never meant to say.

We are not predicting future events, we are trying to analyze something that just happened. Graphs are just a visual shorthand to illustrate what can be said about the data. I am simply using graphs to make my point, the same as arguing pages of data.

Scientific methods that propose hypothesis, test hypothesis, then make predictions and see how well those predictions pan out, are not directly applicable here. One cannot use data from an earlier event as a model for what just happened unless that model had similar elements. One can refer to certain elements of past examples and look for correlations. I am sure the Great Depression and FDR's programs served as a mode.

At least the Heritage guy doesn't post a graph and say see I was right.

1- The Heritage chart leaves out that dismal Bush record and is therefore omitting a simple but important context.

2-The title of the Heritage article is "Recovery Stalled After Obamacare Passed" and does exactly what you criticized about my chart. However if you look closely at the article, it neglects to mention, most of "Obamacare" was not in effect. And also neglects to mention that the stimulus was winding down. So the correlation is very shaky.

[Tom]

This just in.....tonight's football game may be postponed until Sunday!
Obama will have a clear evening if that happens.
NFL to make announcement by noon today.


Seems they don't have a quarter for the coin toss and have asked China to lend them one.

[Tom]

Looks like "Usual Rhetoric" is going to be the winner - WH says the losers will ask for 400 billion more to flush down the toilet tonight.

Meanwhile, oil industries says if it is allowed to drill at home, they could add a million jobs fairly quickly. At 0 jobs a month, how long will it take Obama to add a million?

More good news, Joe Biden says we can double August's job creation numbers in September.

[Mike at A+]

The plan ...

[Lefty]

No doubt Obama will say things like:
"the stimulus worked. We didn't foresee the natural disasters that happened in Japan and the U.S. We didn't foresee the problems in Libia. We just need to stay on course and invest more money to put Americans back to work"

I think that will be the gist of it.

[Tom]

Here's a fun project....

Take a transcript of tonight's speech and see how many of hiis older speeches it takes you to find 100% of tonight's content in 3-5 word phrases.

[hcap]

Here's a fun project....

Take a transcript of tonight's speech and see how many of hiis older speeches it takes you to find 100% of tonight's content in 3-5 word phrases.You know, we can take 10 or 20 of your recent posts and do the exact same thing :lol:

[Lefty]

hcap, so what? Don't you think the standard for the President Of The United States should be higher than us poor minions posting on a forum?
Huh? Huh? Huh?

[hcap]

hcap, so what? Don't you think the standard for the President Of The United States should be higher than us poor minions posting on a forum?
Huh? Huh? Huh?I have no doubt that it is.

[Mike at A+]

I'm hearing a lot about getting work for construction workers and teachers (union jobs) but not much for the rest of us.

[jognlope]

Stupid baised poll, but you knew that. It's not even over and I'm totally impressed. If Lindsey Graham stood for him, that says something. He's my leader tonight. I agree, pass the job act right away.

[jognlope]

That's true, unless the rest of us are on unemployment and can do the trial job thing. He did pass acts last year to favor minorities and women getting loans from SBA for small business, but haven't heard anything since about it.

[Lefty]

Hey, Mike that was exactly what the first stimulus he spent all that money on was supposed to do. Now he's gonna need more money to fullfill the promises of his first stimulus, and I have no doubt the new money will be wasted too.

[hcap]

Good speech. Too bad the rethugs will do everything under the sun to block everything in it.

[bigmack]

Good speech. Too bad the rethugs will do everything under the sun to block everything in it.
What was your favorite part?

[hcap]

When he kissed Rev Wright on the way up to the podium and quoted verbatim from Saul Alinsky.

[bigmack]

When he kissed Rev Wright on the way up to the podium and quoted verbatim from Saul Alinsky.
Entertaining, the way you gravitate to the fringe as if it only comes from one side.

Would you like to see some real pertty graphs about all the wacked out crap from your comrades? Hey, that's right up your alley. We could have a contest to see which team has more wackjobs. :sleeping:

[Tom]

I have a perfect job program that will employ millions of people for an
extended period of time.

Hire people to look Obama's marbles! He clearly has lost them!

:lol::lol::lol:

[Lefty]

Yeah, great plan. He wants another half a trillion which will expand to another trilliuon or more.
Same old plans and rhetoric he's been spouting all along.
He wants jobs but he won't let Boing build a plant in Ohio. They go overseas.
He wants jobs but he wants to raise taxes on Corporations.
He wants jobs but he won't let oil companies drill in the USA, and he wants them to pay more taxes.
Just drivel, and more of it.
His plan to make us Socialists is churning along.

[Tom]

Talk is cheap, Lefty, he should have showed up with a few some promises of his own to show he is serious, which everyone knows he is not.

Anyone with half a brain saw this a nothing more than a campaign speech.
It had nothing at all to do with jobs.

I think America can afford to have one more person out of a job - Obama.

[hcap]

Go and reread what I posted re: CBO:

It had shown itself “flexible” in being able to appease whatever majority happened to be in control of the CBO.And I posted a reply saying the CBO was NON PARTISAN.

What source do you propose to use the NY POST, FOX news or WorldNutDaily?

Meanwhile back at what is considered the STANDARD, and the least partisan of any of the sources we banter about here.....

Last month, the CBO released its analysis of the economic impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or what’s better known as the stimulus for the second quarter of the year. That report said that although the effects of the stimulus are waning, the economic situation of the country would’ve been worse without it.

Specifically it said the stimulus raised real gross domestic product by between 0.8 and 2.5 percent, lowered unemployment by 0.5 to 1.6 percent and increased jobs by 1 to 2.9 million.

Even as it loses steam, the CBO still estimates the stimulus will raise real GDP in 2012 by 0.3 to 0.8 percent and create 0.4 to 1.1 million jobs.

The reason unemployment went up overall is because the stimulus wasn't big enough. Unemployment could have been as high as 11% to 12%, but the stimulus kept it down to 10% (at its highest). So yes, it is possible for unemployment to rise a the same time the stimulus is working (think of it as your fever rising, but to a lesser degree, because you took half an aspirin instead of the whole thing - had you taken no aspirin at all, your fever would have been much worse). It's not that difficult a concept to grasp, but the Republicans are hoping the public is gullible enough to buy their lies, and sadly, they often are.

[rastajenk]

Wow, that second quote is gobbledygook of the first order. Oh, brother! :lol: