If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   The recession is officially over in every part of the country. This is bad news... for Obama   (openchannel.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 198
    More: Obvious, City College of New York, American Election, Palm Coast, GFC, El Centro, Corexit, moving average, Providence College  
•       •       •

2069 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2012 at 12:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-15 02:05:37 PM

MyRandomName: 2nd slowest recovery ever! great job! It's not like economies are cyclical. Wait long enough and you can credit any economic plan with recovery.


Not at all trying to imply that you're wrong, but I was curious if there was any hard data on the "rate" of recover? It seems like there are a number of decent ways to measure this.
 
2012-06-15 02:10:21 PM
Lets check

GDP grew at 2% last year

Now at 1%

going lower
 
2012-06-15 02:12:50 PM

togaman5000: MyRandomName: 2nd slowest recovery ever! great job! It's not like economies are cyclical. Wait long enough and you can credit any economic plan with recovery.

Not at all trying to imply that you're wrong, but I was curious if there was any hard data on the "rate" of recover? It seems like there are a number of decent ways to measure this.


Yes there is

Its what all economist's use.

the GDP growth rate.
 
2012-06-15 02:17:53 PM

LasersHurt: beta_plus: P(reelection) = w1*exp(-[unemployment rate]) + w2*exp(-[gas prices])

where w1 + w2 = 1

Gas prices are falling, but not by much. Could just be the usual up & down.

Unemployment, not so much.

That's down too. Does that not count? And do you think Romney will get it lower without a high cost?


Unemployment rate for April - 8.1
Unemployment rate for May - 8.2

8.1 > 8.2 - this is what liberals actually believe
 
2012-06-15 02:18:09 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

/I forget, who was president 53 months ago?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-15 02:19:19 PM
I don't know much about eee-coo-nomics, but around here gas has dropped something like $.50 a gallon in the last month or two.

So I laugh when the people on Fox news complain about the price of gas.
 
2012-06-15 02:20:01 PM

beta_plus: LasersHurt: beta_plus: P(reelection) = w1*exp(-[unemployment rate]) + w2*exp(-[gas prices])

where w1 + w2 = 1

Gas prices are falling, but not by much. Could just be the usual up & down.

Unemployment, not so much.

That's down too. Does that not count? And do you think Romney will get it lower without a high cost?

Unemployment rate for April - 8.1
Unemployment rate for May - 8.2

8.1 > 8.2 - this is what liberals actually believe


A single month's deviation negates 3 years of improvement. This is what idiots believe.
 
2012-06-15 02:21:19 PM

microman: togaman5000: MyRandomName: 2nd slowest recovery ever! great job! It's not like economies are cyclical. Wait long enough and you can credit any economic plan with recovery.

Not at all trying to imply that you're wrong, but I was curious if there was any hard data on the "rate" of recover? It seems like there are a number of decent ways to measure this.

Yes there is

Its what all economist's use.

the GDP growth rate.


That works, but my line of thought was more based on measuring the gap between where we are now and where we were or where we should have been. I suppose it's just the same data but expressed differently.
 
2012-06-15 02:25:25 PM
This is a good one as well:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-15 02:27:57 PM
One of these guys ran on the promise of smaller government. The other actually delivered.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-15 02:28:49 PM
So because the economy isn't growing fast enough we should elect a leader whose policies will be the same as the person who caused the economy to shrink?
 
2012-06-15 02:30:41 PM

gulogulo: qorkfiend: Those are core Democratic planks and have been for years, and do not represent a move towards any sort of extreme. They're only viewed as "extreme" because the Republicans have shifted so far to the right. If the Democrats have moved at all, they've moved rightward, not leftward.

Our political opinions and what is extreme and what is not is fluid as the years go on. Blind support of unions IS extreme now when it is shown to reduce productivity and cost more than what we are getting out of it. That may not have been the case when the Democrats were first supporting it now, but that has changed. It is polarizing and it's ridiculous to hold onto a notion that no longer works.


I think that what we are actually seeing is not a new blind support among Democrats for unions, but rather a reaction to the new very well funded attacks on unions by the GOP.

I'm curious, why do you believe that unions no longer work?
 
2012-06-15 02:43:20 PM

Fart_Machine: if you are not a nativist after we lost 8 million jobs in the recession that ended 3 years ago and have barely made a dent in replacing them,
we have 8.2% unemployment,
and we need to create 127,000 jobs a month just to keep unemployment from rising (to keep up with population growth which is almost completely the result of massive immigration),
and which we can barely do at this point it seems,
well then you're a f*cking lunatic or you just never gave a shiat about he middle or working class.

Dey took r jerbs!

great argument.

those pre housing crisis jobs are never coming back.
you better seriously reconsider your generosity at handing out 127,000 jobs every month to foreigners that american citizens ould have loved to have.
you better be a f*cking nativist.
if your not, your begging for neoserfdom and the conditions those foreigners are running away from.

Yes everything is due to brown people stealing our jobs. I know that's your shtick and I'm sure you get plenty of hi5s on Stormfront. Please kill yourself. Seriously.




I understand the position assholes like yourself find yourselves in.
it is literally impossible for you to come up with an argument for why we should continue these policies that create unnecessary unemployment for Americans and lower their wage levels.

you're left with just two options, admitting that you support policies that make life much more difficult for working Americans, or screeching racist! and you hate brown people!

as you know this has literally nothing to do with the amount of melatonin in anyone's skin.

it has everything to do with the policies you champion bringing in 1.7 million working age people each year predominantly from countries where our minimum wage would be a really good wage for most of the population, and thus they don't mind at all taking significantly less than American workers, subsequently dragging down median wages in various industries, and putting Americans out of work.

in fact the Americans that are disproportionately affected by these destructive policies of yours are the very brown people that you claim to adore and protect. but you couldn't give a f*ck about the fact that you are literally screwing millions of Americans of color.* they are simply your prop, to be kicked around for political affect when you find yourself in a tight spot.

those 8 million jobs aren't ever coming back; if you aren't a nativist at this point you are a force for American neoserfdom.

*http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123811962Illeg al Immigration Stifles Black Community

/diaf you race baiting neo liberal american sellout
 
2012-06-15 02:44:13 PM

Utnapishtim: gulogulo: qorkfiend: Those are core Democratic planks and have been for years, and do not represent a move towards any sort of extreme. They're only viewed as "extreme" because the Republicans have shifted so far to the right. If the Democrats have moved at all, they've moved rightward, not leftward.

Our political opinions and what is extreme and what is not is fluid as the years go on. Blind support of unions IS extreme now when it is shown to reduce productivity and cost more than what we are getting out of it. That may not have been the case when the Democrats were first supporting it now, but that has changed. It is polarizing and it's ridiculous to hold onto a notion that no longer works.

I think that what we are actually seeing is not a new blind support among Democrats for unions, but rather a reaction to the new very well funded attacks on unions by the GOP.

I'm curious, why do you believe that unions no longer work?


I didn't say Unions no longer work, I said that there are parts of Unions that no longer work. The examples are cited up thread.
 
2012-06-15 02:45:14 PM

El Pachuco: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x415]

/I forget, who was president 53 months ago?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 156x200]


Or...who was president during the recovery from the 2001 Recession?

But Bush.
 
2012-06-15 02:46:07 PM

El Pachuco: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x415]

/I forget, who was president 53 months ago?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 156x200]


B-B-B-B-BUT BUSH!
 
2012-06-15 02:47:54 PM

relcec: I understand the position assholes like yourself find yourselves in.


Hey! We speak English here.

Papers please?
 
2012-06-15 02:56:49 PM

I_C_Weener: El Pachuco: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x415]

/I forget, who was president 53 months ago?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 156x200]

Or...who was president during the recovery from the 2001 Recession?

But Bush.


The guy had two recessions while in office. That's nothing to be proud of.
 
2012-06-15 03:00:36 PM
Despite having the worst GDP and job growth of any administration since Eisenhower, handing Obama an economy losing 750,000 jobs a month, a destroyed housing market, Detroit on the brink of collapse, a completely frozen financial sector, and a $1.4T deficit Bush must never ever be blamed, let alone mentioned.

But bring up Carter as much as you want.
 
2012-06-15 03:00:39 PM

snowshovel: Now that the libs agree that the recession is over, can we finally get around to laying off the government burdens on the job creators. it seems like there's no reason to not implement Romney's tax cuts now...or is that all just lib pandering?


Are you retarded or are you just copy-pasting from some other retard?
 
2012-06-15 03:00:52 PM

Mrtraveler01: I_C_Weener: El Pachuco: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x415]

/I forget, who was president 53 months ago?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 156x200]

Or...who was president during the recovery from the 2001 Recession?

But Bush.

The guy had two recessions while in office. That's nothing to be proud of.


But he handled the first one better than Obama is handling this one...if you want to be consistent and just look at a chart to get your over-simplified pic. Reagan and Bush I did a better job too.

It's almost as if the graphs don't tell the whole story...or that the President is limited in how he can help the economy.
 
2012-06-15 03:02:23 PM

I_C_Weener: But he handled the first one better than Obama is handling this one


Really? By relying on the very same real estate bubble for economic growth that also caused the second and more severe recession?

You're going with that?
 
2012-06-15 03:09:11 PM

I_C_Weener: Or...who was president during the recovery from the 2001 Recession?


Pretty sure it was that guy who had 0% growth in US jobs over the 8 years of his two terms.

cdn.planetminecraft.com

/oh, that wasn't the answer you wanted?
 
2012-06-15 03:12:58 PM

I_C_Weener: But [Bush] handled the first one better than Obama is handling this one


So you are suggesting that Obama should look for a 9/11 (in PNAC speak Pearl Harbor) event to bring the economy down so sharp it bounces up?

No thanks.
 
2012-06-15 03:17:39 PM

BorgiaGinz: loveblondieo: That's news to me and the rest of us on unemployment.

THIS!! The recession is over for rich bastards whose stock portfolios are doing great, but regular Americans are permanently farked.


Geez rise of the Republican alts who haven't posted since the Bush administration.
 
2012-06-15 03:23:42 PM

Wangiss: timujin: loveblondieo: That's news to me and the rest of us on unemployment.

It's only news to you due to your inability to read TFA and to understand basic economics.

What? It was a news article. Doesn't that mean the poster to whom you responded was right?

Or were you responding not to the facts, but the tone of the speech?


I'm responding to the common usage of the phrase "that's news to me." I believe I understand your confusion, though, the usual level of stupidity in your comments could be partially explained by a poor grasp of the English language.
 
2012-06-15 03:36:22 PM
Nevada was the last state to crawl out of recession, and Las Vegas is actually in a recovery. Cool. I've been seeing signs of improvement over the past several months and it's nice to have my observations confirmed by data.

I knew it would take longer for us to recover because we rely so heavily on tourism and gaming. Other areas' economies have to pick up first before people feel comfortable traveling and spending money again.

People need to learn to be patient. The office of President doesn't come with a magic wand, and it'll take more than a few years to undo a recession that was, frankly, about 30 years in the making.

Now if only my home's value would go up!
 
2012-06-15 03:52:06 PM

loveblondieo: That's news to me and the rest of us on unemployment.


I know it may sound stupid, but apply through temp agencies. A lot of hiring companies aren't hiring directly and they're using temp agencies for talent scouting. I was unemployed for almost two years before I caved and said "Screw it. I'll try a temp." A month later I was hired on assignment, and went permanent in six months, benefits and all. And even if they don't take you permanently, if your assignment ends, you can collect unemployment again as if it were day one. Or they may have another assignment for you. Won't hurt to try it out. You can't really lose.
 
2012-06-15 03:52:38 PM

farkityfarker: So because the economy isn't growing fast enough we should elect a leader whose policies will be the same as the person who caused the economy to shrink?


how is it growing?

GDP went from 2% Growth rates to 1% this year.

show your math please..
 
2012-06-15 03:58:10 PM

timujin: Wangiss: timujin: loveblondieo: That's news to me and the rest of us on unemployment.

It's only news to you due to your inability to read TFA and to understand basic economics.

What? It was a news article. Doesn't that mean the poster to whom you responded was right?

Or were you responding not to the facts, but the tone of the speech?

I'm responding to the common usage of the phrase "that's news to me." I believe I understand your confusion, though, the usual level of stupidity in your comments could be partially explained by a poor grasp of the English language.


Japanese. Sorry.
 
2012-06-15 04:01:24 PM

microman: how is it growing?

GDP went from 2% Growth rates to 1% this year.

show your math please..


Growth rate might not be growing, but a positive percentage still indicates growth.
 
2012-06-15 04:03:14 PM

loveblondieo: That's news to me and the rest of us on unemployment.


Welfare queen -- get a f*cking job and stop mooching off the rest of us.

The only way these freeloaders will learn to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is by taking away the social safety net.
 
2012-06-15 04:25:57 PM

gulogulo: microman: how is it growing?

GDP went from 2% Growth rates to 1% this year.

show your math please..

Growth rate might not be growing, but a positive percentage still indicates growth.


True

You do know the direction is not good? more folks on unemployment, less jobs than needed just to give kids a job?
 
2012-06-15 04:46:38 PM

soy_bomb: paygun: God's Hubris: Or perhaps you should advise the GOP House they aren't doing enough.

The root of our economic problems go back to the Bush administration. By that I mean only the democrats in congress at the time, not Bush or any republicans.

[pjmedia.com image 461x315]


Your little chart thingee there ends at the first quarter of 2010. Here, let me give you the numbers since you were too busy celebrating the trough to see the end of it.

139,261
139,273
139,077
139,549
139,607
139,770
140,567
141,912

The last number is 2012 1Q. Which puts us pretty much halfway back up the chart.

You might want to update that chart of yours if you are interested in truth, justice and the American way.
 
2012-06-15 05:40:02 PM

relcec: I understand the position assholes like yourself find yourselves in.
it is literally impossible for you to come up with an argument for why we should continue these policies that create unnecessary unemployment for Americans and lower their wage levels.

you're left with just two options, admitting that you support policies that make life much more difficult for working Americans, or screeching racist! and you hate brown people!

as you know this has literally nothing to do with the amount of melatonin in anyone's skin.

it has everything to do with the policies you champion bringing in 1.7 million working age people each year predominantly from countries where our minimum wage would be a really good wage for most of the population, and thus they don't mind at all taking significantly less than American workers, subsequently dragging down median wages in various industries, and putting Americans out of work.

in fact the America ...


Yes, obviously exporting jobs has nothing to do with it.

This coming from the guy who said the worst thing that ever happened was when LBJ removed ethnic and racial quotas from immigration. Yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the racial component. However you've found a black guy who supports your position so it makes everything OK. Next you'll be saying that you have Hispanic friends.


Embrace that Nativist lable proudly little trooper. You've earned it.

/diaf you race baiting neo liberal american sellout

Oh, and you mad bro?
 
2012-06-15 06:05:36 PM
What is truly impressive is the fact that Obama can still grow the economy with ever republitard voting down party lines to keep it in the shiatter.

Just think what he could do if they actually did good for the country.
 
2012-06-15 09:39:54 PM

bootman: Give them a huge pile of money and find out how developing brains learn and update teaching methods with the best scientifically proven and statistically sound methods. This, of course would be a complete anathema to the right's ideas


Actually, It is the Unions who are against merit-based pay. Legislators, governors and school board superintendents across the country have tried to introduce it to no avail.

The Superintendent of schools in DC wanted to foot a proposal that would double teacher salaries and the unions shot it down since it went against their tenured merit pay structure. A teacher who is in their job for 15 years is not necessarily better than a teacher who has been in their job for 9 years. They should be compensated for the job they do - not how long they manage to hang around.
 
2012-06-15 10:13:02 PM

o5iiawah: bootman: Give them a huge pile of money and find out how developing brains learn and update teaching methods with the best scientifically proven and statistically sound methods. This, of course would be a complete anathema to the right's ideas

Actually, It is the Unions who are against merit-based pay. Legislators, governors and school board superintendents across the country have tried to introduce it to no avail.


Are you implying that merit-based pay is a scientifically proven and statistically sound teaching method?
 
2012-06-15 11:30:46 PM

gulogulo: So, we should keep teachers that are failing to teach our students?


i keep on hearing this - who are these teachers who aren't teaching?

o5iiawah: Actually, It is the Unions who are against merit-based pay. Legislators, governors and school board superintendents across the country have tried to introduce it to no avail.


Because "Merit Based" can't be measured fairly. How do you measure a special ed teacher? How many don't drop out? How do you measure an Art teacher? How many go on to study at Pratt or UCLA? How do you measure a Math teacher versus an English teacher? How well written a word problem is?

Sorry, teachers aren't factory workers - you can't pay them by units produced.
 
2012-06-16 12:23:02 AM

saintstryfe: i keep on hearing this - who are these teachers who aren't teaching?


Seriously? Have you been in schools lately? I had at least four when I was in Junior High that were literally not teaching. More in high school. You can't be so naive to recognize that protecting them is wrong and a waste not just of taxpayer dollars, but also doing a grave disservice to the children under their care. Those deadbeats should not be protected. I believe that we are capable of figuring out a system to measure their competence in teaching the future generation and if they are failing they should not be keeping their jobs.
 
2012-06-16 09:51:43 AM
No recovery here in the burbs of NY.
 
2012-06-16 09:56:48 AM

Tyee: MSNBC ? Anyone have credible source?


I'm surprised they didn't say "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" like McCain did two weeks before the 2008 meltdown. MSNBC has no credibility on economic issues but most of the msm doesn't.
 
2012-06-16 11:58:41 AM

saintstryfe: gulogulo: So, we should keep teachers that are failing to teach our students?

i keep on hearing this - who are these teachers who aren't teaching?

o5iiawah: Actually, It is the Unions who are against merit-based pay. Legislators, governors and school board superintendents across the country have tried to introduce it to no avail.

Because "Merit Based" can't be measured fairly. How do you measure a special ed teacher? How many don't drop out? How do you measure an Art teacher? How many go on to study at Pratt or UCLA? How do you measure a Math teacher versus an English teacher? How well written a word problem is?

Sorry, teachers aren't factory workers - you can't pay them by units produced.


I agree in principle, but realize that teacher unions DO bargain for merit based pay. They just bargain for merit pay established by objective criteria within a teacher's control, rather than subjective criteria outside the teacher's control.

It is widely agreed that job performance in virtually every occupation correlates most closely with training level, and on the job experience. This is so widely agreed upon, in fact, that education level and on the job experience are the two major bases for almost all hiring decisions in almost every field in every market economy.

Happily, both of these factors are also objectively measurable. Which is why teacher unions bargain for pay increases based on... you guessed it... education level and years of service.

Some modern approaches purport to measure teacher performance according to beginning of the year testing and end of the year testing. But student learning depends on a complex array of factors, some of which you listed above. Other factors include individual student motivation, individual familial involvement in the student's education, socio-economic issues, student intelligence levels, and many, many more. Virtually all of them mostly outside of teacher control.

So the basic anti-union argument, that unions oppose merit based pay, is in accurate. They don't. They just want merit pay based on objective criteria within teacher control. This in contrast to authoritarian/arbitrary approaches which base retention and pay on factors like who best sucks up to the boss, which teachers are best looking, who got lucky enough to get the brightest, most motivated aggregate group of students, etc..
 
2012-06-16 05:07:35 PM

I_C_Weener: The Depression has begun?


What are you, 12?
 
2012-06-16 05:13:57 PM

lennavan: MyRandomName: LasersHurt: Interesting that the Romney campaign is doubling down on the "the economy isn't fine" line of attack when indicators are all positive, if slow. It's a risky maneuver to put yourself on the opposite side of hard data.

Would you claim a Cancer patient is fine once a tumor shrinks just a tiny bit. After all, the indicators are positive. It doesn't mean the treatment is always working or even working well. Just because indicators are moving in a certain direction does not mean all is hunky dory. Sorry, you don't get to claim that.

Good analogy, lets extend it. When Dr. Obama took over, the tumor was caused by a lack of white blood cells. The tumor was growing at a rate of over half a million cells per month. Ever since Dr. Obama took over and began treatment with a drug that boosts white blood cells to attack the tumor, the tumor has seen 27 straight months of shrinking. This last month the tumor shrank by 69,000 tumor cells.

But there is more to cancer than simply the tumor. Your immune system is a great readout of how you're doing and indeed as we discussed your white blood cells can directly attack and destroy the tumor. Your immune system and your white blood cell count is at record level highs in a good way. Your immune system has never seen these kinds of levels of profits white blood cells in your entire life.

Now tell me, if your white blood cell count is at record high levels yet your tumor isn't shrinking as fast, don't you start to wonder about WTF is going on with your white blood cells? Perhaps the problem isn't with Dr. Obama, he has fixed your white blood cells, perhaps your white blood cells are farked up. So we image and it turns out all of your white blood cells have accumulated elsewhere, like in your fat cats stores, where they could never aid the tumor because your fat cats just holds on to them and stores there forever. Maybe, just maybe we need another type of treatment that forces those white blood cells ...


I already hit both the smart and funny buttons, but I wanted to add Bra-Vo. I knew there was a reason I colored you blue.
 
2012-06-16 07:29:08 PM

bootman: o5iiawah: bootman: Give them a huge pile of money and find out how developing brains learn and update teaching methods with the best scientifically proven and statistically sound methods. This, of course would be a complete anathema to the right's ideas

Actually, It is the Unions who are against merit-based pay. Legislators, governors and school board superintendents across the country have tried to introduce it to no avail.

Are you implying that merit-based pay is a scientifically proven and statistically sound teaching method?


i cant prove that it is but we have enough data over the last 80 some odd years of tenured education, and statistics on money spend per pupil doubling in the last 30 years to prove that those measures have not significantly increased the amount of learning in the classroom, college preparedness and overall competition with the rest of the world.

I'm not sure anyone has the solution figured out - but rational people have a pretty good idea of what isn't working...
 
2012-06-16 08:47:27 PM

o5iiawah: bootman: o5iiawah: bootman: Give them a huge pile of money and find out how developing brains learn and update teaching methods with the best scientifically proven and statistically sound methods. This, of course would be a complete anathema to the right's ideas

Actually, It is the Unions who are against merit-based pay. Legislators, governors and school board superintendents across the country have tried to introduce it to no avail.

Are you implying that merit-based pay is a scientifically proven and statistically sound teaching method?

i cant prove that it is but we have enough data over the last 80 some odd years of tenured education, and statistics on money spend per pupil doubling in the last 30 years to prove that those measures have not significantly increased the amount of learning in the classroom, college preparedness and overall competition with the rest of the world.

I'm not sure anyone has the solution figured out - but rational people have a pretty good idea of what isn't working...


We agree completely that what we have now is most likely not optimal. My suggestion is to throw egg-heads, researchers and professors at the problem. I see this as a wetware problem, I believe the solution will be more biochemical than moral. All the right wants to do about the issue is crush unions and take a hatchet to budgets.
 
2012-06-17 08:06:36 PM

I_C_Weener: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: The Depression has begun?

See? Another Republican who has mastered the art of ignoring reality.

See? Another Democrat who can't take a joke.

Oh, I'm sorry that was supposed to be a joke? You better work on your content and delivery.

And in an election year, you might want to grow a thicker skin and not assume every comment not in lock step with your considerable political opinion on a website is an insult to your oh so mighty intellect.

Or, you know, relax. Try decaf. The economy is recovering. Stop being so negative all the time.


You forgot the slashies...
 
Displayed 48 of 198 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report