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.

(CBS DC)   White House: "It is important not to read too much into one monthly jobs report." Probably not the past 41 monthly reports either   (washington.cbslocal.com) divider line 384
    More: Obvious, White House, Alan Krueger, CBS Radio  
•       •       •

1421 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Sep 2012 at 3:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-07 01:59:19 PM
Trends, how do they work?

/doom and gloom mongering won't get your boy elected, subby
 
2012-09-07 02:02:43 PM
Fun Fact: Romney's campaign wouldn't allow him to make a statement on the jobs report this morning until they could do it when there were no cameras present, for fear of him looking gleeful about the lower than expected numbers.
 
2012-09-07 02:22:15 PM
Do we really need this thread again?
Link
 
2012-09-07 02:22:46 PM

impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link


Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.
 
2012-09-07 02:24:22 PM
img809.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-07 02:28:09 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Every time a Farker posts an Obama Job Creation graphic some gets a job,
 
2012-09-07 02:31:16 PM

make me some tea: Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.


Then I'll just preempt the "U6 is the 'real' unemployment" derp.

impaler: adiabat: Good news is the U-6 ( Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force - the REAL number.) is 14.7%
From 2002-2008 the worst it ever got was 13.5%.

The "real" number? All countries use U3 as the standard metric.

U6 is pretty much just U3 multiplied by 1.74. They say the same thing, just have a different scale. Why would you call the larger scale "real" when people use the smaller one?

research.stlouisfed.org


U3 and U6 say the same thing, they just have a different scale. So when someone states U6 (when everyone is used to U3's smaller scale), they're trying to mislead.
 
2012-09-07 02:31:16 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]



Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.
 
2012-09-07 02:31:39 PM
I keep hearing the sky is falling, but I've had 3 recruiters call me in the last week. 
 
2012-09-07 02:34:41 PM

I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.


About 130k new workers enter the job market every month. Guess they should have just borrowed money from their parents.
 
2012-09-07 02:34:48 PM
Reaganomics still doesn't work.. This isn't news. We have no manufacturing base so we're trickling our money off-shore and that's going to keep happening until supply side economics is dismantled. Romney isn't going to walk in and shiat jobs and he's only going to get us deeper into the economic mess we're already in. Take trickle down and shove it up your ass mittens.
 
2012-09-07 02:34:57 PM

make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.


Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?
 
2012-09-07 02:36:08 PM

impaler: U3 and U6 say the same thing, they just have a different scale. So when someone states U6 (when everyone is used to U3's smaller scale), they're trying to mislead.


I have been tagging them as U6 trolls. And after a few postings, I just put them on ignore. they NEVER have anything to say. EVER
 
2012-09-07 02:36:26 PM

James!: I keep hearing the sky is falling, but I've had 3 recruiters call me in the last week.


I was a recruiter from Jan 2010-June 2012. 2010 was freakin' ROUGH! Nobody hiring, everyone looking. By the time I left a few months ago, I was having a tough time finding people for all the open job orders I had.
 
2012-09-07 02:36:45 PM

Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


sour cherry pie?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
2012-09-07 02:38:39 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.

About 130k new workers enter the job market every month. Guess they should have just borrowed money from their parents.



Exactly.  Without decent growth, the job creation cannot keep up with new workers joining the job market.  That is the biggest issue.  So, saying he created some jobs over the past few years that hasn't kept up with the predictible trend of new workers....is like saying his record is "less bad than if he did nothing".  "Obama...not as bad as it could have been."  "We have stopped sinking like a rock.  Now we are only sinking like a waterlogged dead body."
 
2012-09-07 02:38:54 PM

Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


Depends. Do we include pies such as French Silk? If yes, die in hell. If no, then cherry pie while a contender does not stand against the combined might of strawberry and rhubarb. That unholy fusion was crafted from the prince of temptation himself.
 
2012-09-07 02:41:40 PM
Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.
 
2012-09-07 02:42:03 PM

I_C_Weener: "We have stopped sinking like a rock. Now we are only sinking like a waterlogged dead body."


But when you consider what he inherited, I think that giving that rock some buoyancy was a pretty good accomplishment. I'll take the guy who reversed the trend over the guy who represents the people that got us into this mess in the first place.
 
2012-09-07 02:43:18 PM

I_C_Weener: Exactly.  Without decent growth, the job creation cannot keep up with new workers joining the job market.  That is the biggest issue.  So, saying he created some jobs over the past few years that hasn't kept up with the predictible trend of new workers....is like saying his record is "less bad than if he did nothing".  "Obama...not as bad as it could have been."  "We have stopped sinking like a rock.  Now we are only sinking like a waterlogged dead body."


Sure would be great if he had anything resembling agreeable participation from his counterparts across the aisle, but when you are met with steadfast refusal to even engage in civil discourse let alone actual measurable and progressive solutions, then you're not going to be particularly buoyant. I'm not pinning this on on a president who at least has presented options. This ball is squarely with the House of Representatives.

Pass a bill that isn't obviously partisan and stacked against any reasonable expectation of passing, enough of this horseshiat all-or-nothing brinksmanship, enough of the petty 100% of what we want and 0% of what anyone else wants nonsense. This country isn't the United States of Republicanism. The other ~50% of the nation needs to be met with their requests as well and the abject failure to even address that reality is what is really sinking employment.
 
2012-09-07 02:44:27 PM

namatad: Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?

sour cherry pie?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



What kind of crust?
 
2012-09-07 02:45:07 PM

Elandriel: Pass a bill that isn't obviously partisan and stacked against any reasonable expectation of passing, enough of this horseshiat all-or-nothing brinksmanship, enough of the petty 100% of what we want and 0% of what anyone else wants nonsense.


Hell, I'd be happy with a bill that didn't contain an abortion amendment.
 
2012-09-07 02:46:09 PM
ct.politicomments.com
 
2012-09-07 02:48:35 PM

I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.

About 130k new workers enter the job market every month. Guess they should have just borrowed money from their parents.


Exactly.  Without decent growth, the job creation cannot keep up with new workers joining the job market.  That is the biggest issue.  So, saying he created some jobs over the past few years that hasn't kept up with the predictible trend of new workers....is like saying his record is "less bad than if he did nothing".  "Obama...not as bad as it could have been."  "We have stopped sinking like a rock.  Now we are only sinking like a waterlogged dead body."


You don't understand the numbers and the metrics of you don't care that you are deliberately clouding the water. The U6 has dropped as well relative to the entire labour force.


People enter and people leave the labour force. Whatever that delta is it is less than 96K otherwise the unemployment rate would not have dropped.

The U6 looks at all the people who want to work and the U3 looks at all the people actively looking. They both dropped since July.
 
2012-09-07 02:51:08 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.

About 130k new workers enter the job market every month. Guess they should have just borrowed money from their parents.



Your point is correct but the number is a little outdated. The CBO currently projects a labor growth of 0.7% annually for the next several years, so if we look at the pre-recession level of employment - 140 million - that's 980,000 jobs/year or about 82,500/month. That number would be a bit higher (90,000/month) if you use BLS estimates on the growth of non-institutionalized population over age 16 over the next 12 months. Either way, somewhere south of 100K.
 
2012-09-07 02:57:31 PM
God damn it IMPALER!!! I was hoping to sucker someone in and then lay down the "you just proved trickle-down doesn't work" on them.
 
2012-09-07 02:58:15 PM

I_C_Weener: namatad: Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?

sour cherry pie?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


What kind of crust?


Flakey.

Elandriel: Depends. Do we include pies such as French Silk? If yes, die in hell. If no, then cherry pie while a contender does not stand against the combined might of strawberry and rhubarb. That unholy fusion was crafted from the prince of temptation himself.


I've not had this concoction before. It sounds tempting. Wonderously tempting.
 
2012-09-07 03:07:28 PM
 
2012-09-07 03:09:02 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: ...I was hoping to sucker someone in...


Maybe I can help. Let's restart.

SomeRandomSomebody Are you arguing that the economy HAS recovered?

I would be interested in the economic indicators you reference to arrive at that conclusion.


S&P?
research.stlouisfed.org

How about GDP?
research.stlouisfed.org

Corporate profits?
research.stlouisfed.org
 
2012-09-07 03:10:26 PM
It's almost as if there's a "Standard Deviation" which is "very large" for a "single sample".

And that "subby" is "farking dumb".
 
2012-09-07 03:11:49 PM
There are manufacturers in this area (Mercer County, Ohio) that are begging for workers. With an unemployment rate at roughly 4.6% it is kinda hard. Those 4.6% that are unemployed either can't work or don't want too.
 
2012-09-07 03:14:12 PM

TheDumbBlonde: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Every time a Farker posts an Obama Job Creation graphic some gets a job,


Every time you make an assertion, a mongoloid is born.
 
2012-09-07 03:19:48 PM
I think there are some spinmeisters the WH should look to hire a few threads below this one. This admitting weakness in a jobs report just won't do
 
2012-09-07 03:19:55 PM
I can has place blame on G0P obstruction?
 
2012-09-07 03:20:15 PM
Higher job growth than the Bush administration still!
 
2012-09-07 03:23:13 PM

WTFDYW: There are manufacturers in this area (Mercer County, Ohio) that are begging for workers. With an unemployment rate at roughly 4.6% it is kinda hard. Those 4.6% that are unemployed either can't work or don't want too.


Or are between jobs or have the incorrect skillset for today's market. AKA structural unemployment.
 
2012-09-07 03:23:20 PM
23.1 million not working... Not that anyone (Obama) is counting.
 
2012-09-07 03:23:25 PM
i568.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-07 03:23:39 PM
I think it's better to have slow continued growth than to deregulate, create another bubble and plummet once again into a bad recession, which seems to be Romney's plan. Let's have growth based on real jobs created based on supply and demand, not fictitious numbers on paper like in the Bush real estate crisis.
 
2012-09-07 03:23:44 PM

xsive: I can has place blame on G0P obstruction?


No. That's not real, and it never happened. The GOP is the most helpful party of all time.
 
2012-09-07 03:24:28 PM

Brick-House: 23.1 million not working... Not that anyone (Obama) is counting.


You mean the people Romney is attacking for being on welfare? Those people?
 
2012-09-07 03:25:01 PM
386,000 people dropped from looking for employment last month.

96,000 jobs created and unemployment drops .2%. WTF

This is Obamas America everybody. Sucking off the government.

Throw his ass out!
 
2012-09-07 03:25:58 PM
Oh...forgot to add the total labor force is as low as it was in 1981.

Obummer the failure.
 
2012-09-07 03:26:07 PM

TIKIMAN87: 386,000 people dropped from looking for employment last month.

96,000 jobs created and unemployment drops .2%. WTF

This is Obamas America everybody. Sucking off the government.

Throw his ass out!


You back from vacation already or did Drew make you take a blackberry?
 
2012-09-07 03:26:08 PM
I'm sure Romneys plan to cut taxes for corporations making record breaking profits wil make all this better. We need a jobs bill, we won't get it because republicans value money over people.
 
2012-09-07 03:26:41 PM

Sybarite: ignatius_crumbcake: I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.

About 130k new workers enter the job market every month. Guess they should have just borrowed money from their parents.


Your point is correct but the number is a little outdated. The CBO currently projects a labor growth of 0.7% annually for the next several years, so if we look at the pre-recession level of employment - 140 million - that's 980,000 jobs/year or about 82,500/month. That number would be a bit higher (90,000/month) if you use BLS estimates on the growth of non-institutionalized population over age 16 over the next 12 months. Either way, somewhere south of 100K.


What you said does not contradict what he said.
 
2012-09-07 03:26:56 PM

Corvus: I think it's better to have slow continued growth than to deregulate, create another bubble and plummet once again into a bad recession, which seems to be Romney's plan. Let's have growth based on real jobs created based on supply and demand, not fictitious numbers on paper like in the Bush real estate crisis.


having strong growth is even better
 
2012-09-07 03:27:02 PM

Brick-House: DERP


Remind me again what RMoney's jobs plan is? What was that? Did you really just say tax cuts for the wealthy? You did, didn't you?
 
2012-09-07 03:27:32 PM

TIKIMAN87: Oh...forgot to add the total labor force is as low as it was in 1981.

Obummer the failure.


Baby boomers. Don't be a dumbass.
 
2012-09-07 03:27:41 PM
Obamanomics don't work. But don't worry, he'll shower you with food stamps as you stand on the unemployment line.
 
2012-09-07 03:28:24 PM

Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


Seconded.
 
2012-09-07 03:28:30 PM

Agneska: Obamanomics don't work. But don't worry, he'll shower you with food stamps as you stand on the unemployment line.


I find this highly amusing, considering all of the contradictory pieces of evidence in this very thread.
 
2012-09-07 03:28:37 PM
When you can't even have the last President to represent your Party speak at your Convention because of his absolutely dismal economic record I don't want to hear from you about how Obama is screwing up the economy.
 
2012-09-07 03:29:17 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Bush still created 5 times more jobs than were lost in the last months of his presidency.

That graph is misleading.
 
2012-09-07 03:29:49 PM

Brick-House: 23.1 million not working... Not that anyone (Obama) is counting.


So NOW you want the government to be involved in the economy? OK - ask Boehner why Congress hasn't passed a jobs bill since the GOP took over the House in 2011.

To sign a jobs bill, Obama has to get one sent to his desk. The president can't rule by fiat - and if he tried, you'd be farking biatching about it.
 
2012-09-07 03:30:00 PM

Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


Cheesecake, with its lack of a top crust, is technically a pie. And cheesecake is greater than cherry pie.
 
2012-09-07 03:31:12 PM

TIKIMAN87: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Bush still created 5 times more jobs than were lost in the last months of his presidency.

That graph is misleading.


So why didn't he speak at the RNC last week?
 
2012-09-07 03:31:31 PM

skullkrusher: having strong growth is even better


The private sector is welcome to get going on that any time it wants.

Agneska: Obamanomics don't work. But don't worry, he'll shower you with food stamps as you stand on the unemployment line.


Funny how you won't blame the private sector for the state of things given it's their fault things are how they are.
 
2012-09-07 03:31:43 PM

TIKIMAN87: Bush still created 5 times more jobs than were lost in the last months of his presidency.


Bush had the worst job and GDP growth of any administration since Eisenhower. He made history with his bad economy. And you are defending his record. lol
 
2012-09-07 03:31:54 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.


The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.
 
2012-09-07 03:32:08 PM

I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.


People laid-off from factory work are unemployable sometimes?
 
2012-09-07 03:32:21 PM

urbangirl: Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?

Seconded.


extras.mnginteractive.com

agrees
 
2012-09-07 03:32:25 PM

gameshowhost: xsive: I can has place blame on G0P obstruction?

No. That's not real, and it never happened. The GOP is the most helpful party of all time.


yes but what about the G0P?

/as clinton basically called them
 
2012-09-07 03:32:47 PM
Come on! President Romney and a big Republican majority in Congress! Trickle that motherfarker down! We can get this up to 20% U3 and maybe get a proper revolution going! Yeah!
 
2012-09-07 03:33:17 PM

WhyteRaven74: The private sector is welcome to get going on that any time it wants.


*rolleyes*
 
2012-09-07 03:33:23 PM

namatad: impaler: U3 and U6 say the same thing, they just have a different scale. So when someone states U6 (when everyone is used to U3's smaller scale), they're trying to mislead.

I have been tagging them as U6 trolls. And after a few postings, I just put them on ignore. they NEVER have anything to say. EVER


Clearly, you've never read any of their Post6s When they make a Post6, it has a completely different tone and feeling to it that adds a sense of urgency.
 
2012-09-07 03:33:38 PM

TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.


FALSE
 
2012-09-07 03:34:26 PM
368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?
 
2012-09-07 03:34:39 PM

MisterLoki: [i568.photobucket.com image 380x446]


People keep posting that as if it means Obama is a lock for re-election. If that's what you think it means, then you don't understand what it says. Those aren't poll numbers, they're odds. It's saying Romney has a little worse than a 1 in 4 chance of winning the election. Sure, Obama is in a better position, but that is a long, long way from certain victory. Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun? If you're an Obama supporter and that sounds like lousy odds to you, then you shouldn't be happy with these numbers.
 
2012-09-07 03:34:42 PM
 
2012-09-07 03:34:54 PM

jst3p: Cheesecake, with its lack of a top crust, is technically a pie. And cheesecake is greater than cherry pie.


The best cheesecake doesn't need a crust. Just a crumble.

/seriously, the trick to cheesecake is to rice the cream cheese
 
2012-09-07 03:35:03 PM

skullkrusher: *rolleyes*


So the private sector can't do anything to effect the economy?
 
2012-09-07 03:35:14 PM
A vast majority of long term unemployed are simply unemployable.
 
2012-09-07 03:35:18 PM
Why is this so hard to understand?

1) Retirees retire.
2) Some people lose hope and leave workforce because dickhead employers are holding onto huge profits, exec salaries just so Romney can win and give them tax breaks.
3) There are something like 300,000 unfilled jobs because people aren't qualified. You know why? Because in some cases, people who are qualified jump at entry or low-mid level jobs after being out of work for so long, leaving a skill vacuum at the top.
4) GOP obstructionism.

or

1) Obama is a Fart who mines farts while he secretly Muslim farts out socialism.
 
2012-09-07 03:35:40 PM

soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?


Ever heard of retirement?
 
2012-09-07 03:35:43 PM

I_C_Weener: Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then? Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here.... hmmm.


Think back to your high-school calculus classes. The "monthly changes" chart looks pretty much like the derivative of the U3/U6 graph 2 posts below it, and there's still a larger area below the line 2008-2009 (aka the "Obama recession") than there is above the line 2010-present. So vote Republican.
 
2012-09-07 03:35:45 PM

CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE


Hey I can do that too TRUE
 
2012-09-07 03:36:06 PM

Agneska: Obamanomics don't work. But don't worry, he'll shower you with food stamps as you stand on the unemployment line.


You mean give you the same number of food stamps as Bush?
 
2012-09-07 03:36:30 PM

leviosaurus: People keep posting that as if it means Obama is a lock for re-election. If that's what you think it means, then you don't understand what it says. Those aren't poll numbers, they're odds.


Which, the thing that says "chance of winning"? That just means odds?

Wow, I learn something new every day.

Thank you, your post was not totally wasted in a puddle of froth and vomit.

leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?


"Both sides are bad, so kill yourself." Catchy.
 
2012-09-07 03:36:48 PM

xsive: gameshowhost: xsive: I can has place blame on G0P obstruction?

No. That's not real, and it never happened. The GOP is the most helpful party of all time.

yes but what about the G0P G-zeee-roh-P ?

/as clinton basically called them


FTFY
 
2012-09-07 03:37:05 PM

praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE


except it really is false
 
2012-09-07 03:38:13 PM

Mrtraveler01: TIKIMAN87: Oh...forgot to add the total labor force is as low as it was in 1981.

Obummer the failure.

And the trend started under Bush. Funny huh?

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


I wonder if anyone remebers what happened 62 to 67 years ago that would cause the Labor Force Participation rate to go down so drasticly in the last years and continue on forapproximately the next 10 years?
 
2012-09-07 03:38:22 PM

leviosaurus: MisterLoki: [i568.photobucket.com image 380x446]

People keep posting that as if it means Obama is a lock for re-election. If that's what you think it means, then you don't understand what it says. Those aren't poll numbers, they're odds. It's saying Romney has a little worse than a 1 in 4 chance of winning the election. Sure, Obama is in a better position, but that is a long, long way from certain victory. Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun? If you're an Obama supporter and that sounds like lousy odds to you, then you shouldn't be happy with these numbers.


In politics, a 77% percent chance for victory might as well be a landslide.
Similarly, if you get a poll back and its 60/40, you do not get excited because you're only 20 points behind your opponent. you don't say "Well, he's only got 60%!"

Anyhow, it's an aggregate of electoral math. Common sense says that Romney's losing his footholds and his paths to 270 - that's one of the reasons why Obama is up nearly 10% in the last week.
 
2012-09-07 03:38:23 PM

WhyteRaven74: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

Ever heard of retirement?


Most of today's seniors don't know what that means.

/lame democrat(ic) talking point is lame
//maybe Obama will give you a gold star still for trying
 
2012-09-07 03:38:27 PM

CPennypacker: praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE

except it really is false


it's false and it's been gone over on fark so many times I can't believe there's anyone who still pushes this BS.
 
2012-09-07 03:38:28 PM

WhyteRaven74: skullkrusher: *rolleyes*

So the private sector can't do anything to effect the economy?


so it doesn't matter who we elect in November, this is on the "private sector"? ya know, that monolith.

What would you have the "private sector" do? Force people to shop at gunpoint? Hire people when they are able to meet demand with their current workforce? Which do you propose, because those are the 2 options.

The first is very bad, the second is "congrats, you're now a supply sider"
 
2012-09-07 03:39:05 PM

praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE


Ok, facts.

Al Franken wasn't confirmed until May, June 2009? Something like that. Then Kennedy dies in September 2009? I may be off by a month or two for each. And then Scott Brown gets in Jan 2010. So.... you're looking at about 4-6 months of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Again, FALSE.
 
2012-09-07 03:39:24 PM

Mrtraveler01: TIKIMAN87: Oh...forgot to add the total labor force is as low as it was in 1981.

Obummer the failure.

And the trend started under Bush. Funny huh?

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]


Explain to me how enumployment has dropped from over 10% to 8% with more and more people not working?

You see it's easy for the rate to drop when you simply stop counting people.
 
2012-09-07 03:40:16 PM

soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?


THIS.
 
2012-09-07 03:41:16 PM

TIKIMAN87: THIS.


Don't you want to defend Bush's jobs record some more?
 
2012-09-07 03:41:20 PM
Supply side economics works great if your money works for you.
If you work for your money...not so much.
 
2012-09-07 03:41:32 PM

Citrate1007: A vast majority of long term unemployed are simply unemployable.


What hard core unemployables might look like.

4.bp.blogspot.com

//obscure?
 
2012-09-07 03:41:54 PM

sprawl15: jst3p: Cheesecake, with its lack of a top crust, is technically a pie. And cheesecake is greater than cherry pie.

The best cheesecake doesn't need a crust. Just a crumble.

/seriously, the trick to cheesecake is to rice the cream cheese



upgrade the exaust, body kits, nitrous, spoilers, speakers, lights?

www.civicforumz.com
 
2012-09-07 03:42:13 PM

TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.


That is utter bull pockey. The stimulous bill wa passed within the fist 2 years and actually worked.
 
2012-09-07 03:42:16 PM

soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?


So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.
 
2012-09-07 03:42:40 PM

praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE


Three branches? Never mind the lie about the Legislative branch you think he controlled the Judicial branch as well? Really?
 
2012-09-07 03:42:59 PM
freakin blah guy.
 
2012-09-07 03:43:03 PM

shastacola: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.


And.... of course... that's FartBooger's fault.
 
2012-09-07 03:43:04 PM

soy_bomb: /lame democrat(ic) talking point is lame


It's not a talking point, a part of why people leave the workforce is retirement. And right now we have tons of people hitting retirement age.

skullkrusher: because those are the 2 options.


There are other options, invest in capital improvements ie buy new equipment to replace old equipment, increase wages, like Caterpillar which has in place a freeze on wage increases while reporting record profits, hire back people that were let go. Just because 10 people can manage to do the work of 12 does not mean having them do so is a good idea. If a company is making as much stuff as before it laid people off but doing it with fewer workers it's not exactly do anyone, including itself, any favors. And there are other options as well, though some are industry specific but they are there.
 
2012-09-07 03:43:20 PM

TIKIMAN87: 386,000 people dropped from looking for employment last month.

96,000 jobs created and unemployment drops .2%. WTF

This is Obamas America everybody. Sucking off the government.

Throw his ass out!


The birth rate (per 1000 population) during the early part of the baby-boom (~1945-1950) was in the neighborhod of about 24. The US population during those years averaged roughly 145 million.

(145 million/1000) x 24 is about 3.5 million births per year on (rough) average. Every one of those people is 62 or older now with even larger numbers of people approaching those ages. If hundreds of thousands of these people are dropping out of job searches now for 'early' retirement... so be it.
 
2012-09-07 03:43:45 PM

James!: I keep hearing the sky is falling, but I've had 3 recruiters call me in the last week.


Oh goody, another thread about data where we tell personal anecdotes as if they mean anything
 
2012-09-07 03:44:01 PM

Nadie_AZ: Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


www.bonappetit.com
 
2012-09-07 03:44:10 PM

jst3p: sprawl15: jst3p: Cheesecake, with its lack of a top crust, is technically a pie. And cheesecake is greater than cherry pie.

The best cheesecake doesn't need a crust. Just a crumble.

/seriously, the trick to cheesecake is to rice the cream cheese


upgrade the exaust, body kits, nitrous, spoilers, speakers, lights?

[www.civicforumz.com image 400x300]


You forgot the Type-R sticker.

That's worth at least 20 horsepower.
 
2012-09-07 03:44:19 PM
I love these back and forths.

Person 1: "More people have lost their jobs under Obama."
Person 2: "No they haven't, the job losses started with Bush, and here are some graphs that show that."
Person 1: "Those graphs are misleading."
Person 2: "How? Explain."
Person 1: "Congress was run by the Democrats starting in 2006, that's why the economy crashed."
Person 2: "Congress has been stifled by the Republicans starting in 2010, that's why the economy is stalled."

etc.
 
2012-09-07 03:44:39 PM

theknuckler_33: TIKIMAN87: 386,000 people dropped from looking for employment last month.

96,000 jobs created and unemployment drops .2%. WTF

This is Obamas America everybody. Sucking off the government.

Throw his ass out!

The birth rate (per 1000 population) during the early part of the baby-boom (~1945-1950) was in the neighborhod of about 24. The US population during those years averaged roughly 145 million.

(145 million/1000) x 24 is about 3.5 million births per year on (rough) average. Every one of those people is 62 or older now with even larger numbers of people approaching those ages. If hundreds of thousands of these people are dropping out of job searches on a monthly basis now for 'early' retirement... so be it.


FTFM
 
2012-09-07 03:44:51 PM

TIKIMAN87:

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.


If by two years, you mean 20 working days in the middle of 2009, then yes, he did.
 
2012-09-07 03:45:20 PM

coeyagi: praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE

Ok, facts.

Al Franken wasn't confirmed until May, June 2009? Something like that. Then Kennedy dies in September 2009? I may be off by a month or two for each. And then Scott Brown gets in Jan 2010. So.... you're looking at about 4-6 months of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Again, FALSE.


You also have to factor in the fact that Congress gets a month off for July 4. And a week for Labor Day. I remember running the numbers - the Dems had something like 2 WEEKS in session with 58 votes, plus Lieberman and Specter.
 
2012-09-07 03:45:48 PM

WhyteRaven74: There are other options, invest in capital improvements ie buy new equipment to replace old equipment, increase wages, like Caterpillar which has in place a freeze on wage increases while reporting record profits, hire back people that were let go. Just because 10 people can manage to do the work of 12 does not mean having them do so is a good idea. If a company is making as much stuff as before it laid people off but doing it with fewer workers it's not exactly do anyone, including itself, any favors. And there are other options as well, though some are industry specific but they are there.


so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?
 
2012-09-07 03:46:02 PM
Now is as good a time as any to ask a question that bugs me about this metric: What the hell does it mean "given up looking for a job"??

What does that mean? What CAN it mean? Does it mean that people have accepted living homeless and broke is now their lot in life and that they no longer even seek employment? Does it mean they've just stopped collecting unemployment? That they've merely stopped using regular (i.e. government tracked) employment agencies? Or that when asked, they flippantly replied, "Nah, I've stopped even looking for work"? Or were previously the unemployed job-seekers being classed as "employed" as in "employed in seeking employment"?

It seems to me there are only two states of being: Either you are employed or you are not. And regardless of whether you are "looking" for a job or have "given up looking" and resigned yourself to eating scraps from the dumpster behind McDonalds, in both cases you are NOT EMPLOYED.

Is there some other, third state of being regarding jobs I'm unaware of? Or is this like how the budget was artificially lowered by not counting war costs, only in reverse: "We've decided that the unemployed job-seekers are now officially unemployed and no longer officially...unemployed"?
 
2012-09-07 03:46:31 PM

make me some tea: I love these back and forths.

Person 1: "More people have lost their jobs under Obama."
Person 2: "No they haven't, the job losses started with Bush, and here are some graphs that show that."
Person 1: "Those graphs are misleading."
Person 2: "How? Explain."
Person 1: "Congress was run by the Democrats starting in 2006, that's why the economy crashed."
Person 2: "Congress has been stifled by the Republicans starting in 2010, that's why the economy is stalled."

etc.


Don't forget that no one is allowed to place even the smallest amount of blame on Obama's predecessor but it is completely acceptable, encouraged even, to compare Obama to Carter repeatedly.
 
2012-09-07 03:47:07 PM
There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America
 
2012-09-07 03:47:14 PM

Minarets: TIKIMAN87:

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

If by two years, you mean 20 working days in the middle of 2009, then yes, he did.


he'll just toss that lie out next time he gets the chance, it's not the he's unaware that he's wrong.

Notice he never addressed his "point" being smacked down, he just moved onto another BS talking point..if that gets smacked down, guess what? he'll toss out another.
 
2012-09-07 03:48:19 PM
Romney's plan is to cut government to the bone and boost profits for the wealthy. Everybody wave bye-bye as China leaves us in the dustheap of history:

China approves $157-billion infrastructure spending



http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/china-economy-idINDEE8860E22 0 120907
 
2012-09-07 03:48:43 PM

skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?


Capital expenditures come with tax benefits, namely depreciation on equipment. Indeed for everything I mentioned there are tax benefits. Also, how is a company going to maintain profitability if its revenues don't grow? And funny the CEO's of times past had no problem lowering their profit margins for a while just to make sure they'd have higher ones later. Or even have them later.
 
2012-09-07 03:48:47 PM
Listen Republicans, if you want to pin the current economy on Obama then you first have to admit that GWB was responsible for the failure of an economy he handed Obama. I'm not holding my breath.
 
2012-09-07 03:49:29 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Trends, how do they work?

/doom and gloom mongering won't get your boy elected, subby


trend is down.
2011 - 154k jobs/month (145k for first 8 months)
2012 - 138k jobs
 
2012-09-07 03:49:33 PM

Citrate1007: A vast majority of long term unemployed are simply unemployable.


[citation needed]

WhyteRaven74: Ever heard of retirement?


that's not what that number means at all you ninny
 
2012-09-07 03:49:39 PM

SlothB77: There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America


So no baby boomers have retired?
 
2012-09-07 03:49:54 PM
img11.imageshack.us
While people lost their homes.
While families fell apart.
While businesses died.

While we begged for help from our "leaders."

Never forget, and never forgive.

/VOTE
 
2012-09-07 03:49:58 PM
Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.
 
2012-09-07 03:50:04 PM

JokerMattly: leviosaurus: MisterLoki: [i568.photobucket.com image 380x446]

People keep posting that as if it means Obama is a lock for re-election. If that's what you think it means, then you don't understand what it says. Those aren't poll numbers, they're odds. It's saying Romney has a little worse than a 1 in 4 chance of winning the election. Sure, Obama is in a better position, but that is a long, long way from certain victory. Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun? If you're an Obama supporter and that sounds like lousy odds to you, then you shouldn't be happy with these numbers.

In politics, a 77% percent chance for victory might as well be a landslide.
Similarly, if you get a poll back and its 60/40, you do not get excited because you're only 20 points behind your opponent. you don't say "Well, he's only got 60%!"

Anyhow, it's an aggregate of electoral math. Common sense says that Romney's losing his footholds and his paths to 270 - that's one of the reasons why Obama is up nearly 10% in the last week.


If you get a poll telling you that your opponent is leading by 20 points, Nate Silver will give your opponent a 100% chance of winning the election. He isn't doing that here. If his model is off by as little as 3 states, you're looking at President Romney.

Nobody's a bigger fan of Nate Silver than me. If I had to pick anyone's numbers to trust, they'd be his. But even he says there is too much uncertainty to be too confident in these numbers right now. Some of his assumptions have not played out - like a post convention bump for Romney - and he isn't certain if that means Romney is behind or if post-convention bumps are a thing of the past with the advent of the Internet Age. If that's the case, then Obama's number will drop like a rock when the polls come out next week. This election is anything but typical. He could adjust his model tomorrow and show Obama as behind.
 
2012-09-07 03:50:21 PM

SlothB77: There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America


how about a link on those numbers you're using...
 
2012-09-07 03:50:27 PM

BigJake: James!: I keep hearing the sky is falling, but I've had 3 recruiters call me in the last week.

Oh goody, another thread about data where we tell personal anecdotes as if they mean anything



All politics is personal.  I'll take my anecdotes and you take your various U numbers and we'll see who comes out ahead in November.
 
2012-09-07 03:50:54 PM

leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?


cdn3.hark.com

GUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! 
 
2012-09-07 03:51:08 PM

Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.


If the GOP didn't want us to complain about how the worst president in US history savaged the economy they shouldn't have elected him.
 
2012-09-07 03:51:28 PM

Gyrfalcon: Now is as good a time as any to ask a question that bugs me about this metric: What the hell does it mean "given up looking for a job"??

What does that mean? What CAN it mean? Does it mean that people have accepted living homeless and broke is now their lot in life and that they no longer even seek employment? Does it mean they've just stopped collecting unemployment? That they've merely stopped using regular (i.e. government tracked) employment agencies? Or that when asked, they flippantly replied, "Nah, I've stopped even looking for work"? Or were previously the unemployed job-seekers being classed as "employed" as in "employed in seeking employment"?

It seems to me there are only two states of being: Either you are employed or you are not. And regardless of whether you are "looking" for a job or have "given up looking" and resigned yourself to eating scraps from the dumpster behind McDonalds, in both cases you are NOT EMPLOYED.

Is there some other, third state of being regarding jobs I'm unaware of? Or is this like how the budget was artificially lowered by not counting war costs, only in reverse: "We've decided that the unemployed job-seekers are now officially unemployed and no longer officially...unemployed"?


I guess there's the people who aren't legally eligible to work.
 
2012-09-07 03:51:51 PM

All2morrowsparTs: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

That is utter bull pockey. The stimulous bill wa passed within the fist 2 years and actually worked.


It worked? Are you a farking retard?
 
2012-09-07 03:51:59 PM

jst3p: sprawl15: jst3p: Cheesecake, with its lack of a top crust, is technically a pie. And cheesecake is greater than cherry pie.

The best cheesecake doesn't need a crust. Just a crumble.

/seriously, the trick to cheesecake is to rice the cream cheese


upgrade the exaust, body kits, nitrous, spoilers, speakers, lights?

[www.civicforumz.com image 400x300]


Seriously, though. This is a potato ricer:

img715.imageshack.us

When ricing cheesecake I prefer to get one of those wire strainers and just smash it through with a spoon:

img513.imageshack.us 

It makes the cheesecake amazingly light.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:25 PM

unexplained bacon: SlothB77: There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America

how about a link on those numbers you're using...


Don't bother, they're ficticous.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:32 PM

Gyrfalcon: What the hell does it mean "given up looking for a job"??


BTW the 386,000 number is not people who have given up looking for a job, it's people who have left the workforce, it can be because they retired, because they're going back to school and lots of other reasons.

BigJake: that's not what that number means at all you ninny


Yes it is. It measures the number of people leaving the workforce, not the number of people no longer looking for employment. One can't leave the workforce if one is not employed after all.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:35 PM

TIKIMAN87: Are you a farking retard?


No, he isn't. He didn't defend Bush's job record.
 
2012-09-07 03:52:38 PM

make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.


Fine.

Everything is FABULOUS, Obama has lead us all to his vision of a shining future. We only need reelect him, and we will feast on the fruits of his labor.

/can I go now?
 
2012-09-07 03:52:49 PM

TIKIMAN87: All2morrowsparTs: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

That is utter bull pockey. The stimulous bill wa passed within the fist 2 years and actually worked.

It worked? Are you a farking retard?


is the CBO?
 
2012-09-07 03:52:59 PM

WhyteRaven74: If a company is making as much stuff as before it laid people off but doing it with fewer workers it's not exactly do anyone, including itself, any favors.


this is a joke, right

you're trying to pull our legs by imitating a complete know-nothing, right
 
2012-09-07 03:53:10 PM

Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.


Alright. I want to hear Romney's plan to fix the economy, but he apparently won't tell me the details until he gets elected President.
 
2012-09-07 03:53:15 PM

xsive: gameshowhost: xsive: I can has place blame on G0P obstruction?

No. That's not real, and it never happened. The GOP is the most helpful party of all time.

yes but what about the G0P?

/as clinton basically called them


Those guys are awesome. ._.
 
2012-09-07 03:53:21 PM

CPennypacker: Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.

If the GOP didn't want us to complain about how the worst president in US history savaged the economy they shouldn't have elected him.


And they certainly shouldn't have nominated a candidate who's promising to do the exact same things Bush did, except Romney will do them twice as hard.
 
2012-09-07 03:53:43 PM
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? This guy isn't:
extras.mnginteractive.com
 
2012-09-07 03:53:51 PM

Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.


Ya, I know you'd like GWB to just disappear from the history books. Can't blame you, after all, he was the worst President ever.
 
2012-09-07 03:54:18 PM

James!: All politics is personal. I'll take my anecdotes and you take your various U numbers and we'll see who comes out ahead in November.


ohhhhhhhhhkay
 
2012-09-07 03:54:27 PM

Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


Hot fresh pecan pie with vanilla ice cream!
 
2012-09-07 03:55:07 PM

sprawl15: Seriously, though. This is a potato ricer:


hmmm, have to try that one
 
2012-09-07 03:55:21 PM
Are you better off than you were 4 Years Ago?

images.zap2it.com

Damn you, Fartbongo!
 
2012-09-07 03:55:57 PM
Hey look, Republicans are mad that Democrats are pointing out that Romney's platform is identical to Bush's, the worst president in American history. That they elected willingly.

Sucks when history is never on your side, ever.
 
2012-09-07 03:56:09 PM

thurstonxhowell: leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?

[cdn3.hark.com image 320x240]

GUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!


erm... a four chamber revolver. That's what I actually said. The filter must've messed it up. Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2012-09-07 03:56:16 PM
It is still infinity greater than the jobs created by the GOP house.

Pretty sure 96,000 > ZER-OH!
 
2012-09-07 03:56:24 PM

coeyagi: praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE

Ok, facts.

Al Franken wasn't confirmed until May, June 2009? Something like that. Then Kennedy dies in September 2009? I may be off by a month or two for each. And then Scott Brown gets in Jan 2010. So.... you're looking at about 4-6 months of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Again, FALSE.


And even then, not really, since their filibuster-proof majority included the Blue Dog Democrats from flyover country and Joe "I'm an 'independent' and totally not in the GOP's corner despite me running for their party's presidential nomination in 2008, oh and I want you to hamstring the health care reform bill or else I'm gonna side with the GOP and vote against cloture" Lieberman
 
2012-09-07 03:56:25 PM

namatad: Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?

sour cherry pie?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


cdn1.ticketsinventory.com

Disapproves
 
2012-09-07 03:57:32 PM

WhyteRaven74: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

Capital expenditures come with tax benefits, namely depreciation on equipment. Indeed for everything I mentioned there are tax benefits. Also, how is a company going to maintain profitability if its revenues don't grow? And funny the CEO's of times past had no problem lowering their profit margins for a while just to make sure they'd have higher ones later. Or even have them later.


what do you think has changed? Suddenly what happened in the past 4 or 5 years to make things different? Seems to me that logic dictates that the private sector would be hiring more people, putting money towards capex, etc if it behooved them to do so. If the demand is not there, they will not invest in new equipment or hires.

What we're likely seeing now with the recent productivity numbers and profits is that demand is strengthening. Companies that downsized at the height of the recession are seeing revenues growing with similar labor and cap expenditures. This cannot last forever and I think we will soon see an uptick in actual hiring in the next few Qs. That's not going to happen until it has to, however.
 
2012-09-07 03:57:37 PM

BigJake: this is a joke, right


Nope. By having people fewer people do more work you're wearing out your employees faster also making growth in productivity harder to achieve. And then there's the fact there are fewer people with money to buy what you make. This used to be standard for every CEO, they understood that what might seem good on paper today could actually be bad tomorrow.
 
2012-09-07 03:58:12 PM

impaler: Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? This guy isn't:
[extras.mnginteractive.com image 601x411]


turns out that he was right. Heaven wasn't too far away after all
 
2012-09-07 03:58:13 PM

coeyagi: Are you better off than you were 4 Years Ago?


Ya, I don't get why they keep asking this question? I think the majority of people and the economy as a whole is better off than the economic free fall we were in when Bush handed over the economy. I guess the Republicans are betting on the old adage that if you keep telling people they are worse off they will eventually begin to believe it.
 
2012-09-07 03:58:23 PM

King Something: coeyagi: praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE

Ok, facts.

Al Franken wasn't confirmed until May, June 2009? Something like that. Then Kennedy dies in September 2009? I may be off by a month or two for each. And then Scott Brown gets in Jan 2010. So.... you're looking at about 4-6 months of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Again, FALSE.

And even then, not really, since their filibuster-proof majority included the Blue Dog Democrats from flyover country and Joe "I'm an 'independent' and totally not in the GOP's corner despite me running for their party's presidential nomination in 2008, oh and I want you to hamstring the health care reform bill or else I'm gonna side with the GOP and vote against cloture" Lieberman


Yeah, I didn't have the strength to point out all the other ones. I figured giving them a 75% reduction on their 2 year statement was enough... for them to conveniently ignore. Plus, you tell them it was down to like 2 weeks, and then they just start yelling "bullshiat" because it is the complete opposite of what Fox News tells them.
 
2012-09-07 03:58:36 PM

King Something: coeyagi: praymantis: CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: AdolfOliverPanties: Obama's plans work. Steady job growth, even though the GOP has fought and blocked everything that would help.

The stock market is at record highs and corporations have never made more profits.

The stock market is high becuase his buddy Ben Bernanke has printed trillions of dollars into the system. The market is inflated and will crash even harder in the end.

Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years and yet he passed no jobs bills. Only cramming health care through.

FALSE

Hey I can do that too TRUE

Ok, facts.

Al Franken wasn't confirmed until May, June 2009? Something like that. Then Kennedy dies in September 2009? I may be off by a month or two for each. And then Scott Brown gets in Jan 2010. So.... you're looking at about 4-6 months of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Again, FALSE.

And even then, not really, since their filibuster-proof majority included the Blue Dog Democrats from flyover country and Joe "I'm an 'independent' and totally not in the GOP's corner despite me running for their party's presidential nomination in 2008, oh and I want you to hamstring the health care reform bill or else I'm gonna side with the GOP and vote against cloture" Lieberman


But those liberal facts don't fit the GOP narrative, so they are not announced. If so, it would seem like Republicans have done nothing but obstruct the president, and still he has been able to make great accomplishments. If anything, it only solidifies my vote for him, and that the Republicans haven't had a chance in this election since 2008.
 
2012-09-07 03:58:40 PM

skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?


How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.

Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?
 
2012-09-07 03:59:08 PM

WhyteRaven74: BigJake: this is a joke, right

Nope. By having people fewer people do more work you're wearing out your employees faster also making growth in productivity harder to achieve. And then there's the fact there are fewer people with money to buy what you make. This used to be standard for every CEO, they understood that what might seem good on paper today could actually be bad tomorrow.


Yeah, but these days, you gotta hit your quarterly earnings targets so you get your bonuses. There's absolutely no incentive to think long-term.
 
2012-09-07 03:59:24 PM
Republican plan:

1. Do everything humanly possible to keep the economy from recovering.
2. Wait for 2012.
3. Run a campaign based on the fact that the economy is not as recovered as we'd like.

I don't hate America enough to vote republican.
 
2012-09-07 03:59:28 PM

Citrate1007: A vast majority of long term unemployed are simply unemployable.


I wonder why... We should cut education spending some more!
 
2012-09-07 03:59:56 PM

skullkrusher: what do you think has changed? Suddenly what happened in the past 4 or 5 years to make things different?


The people running things are different than they used to be. The people who ran things in the past thought of the larger economic consequences of their decisions and operated on the assumption that if it's good for the economy it's good for business, likewise what's good for business is only that which is good for the economy.
 
2012-09-07 03:59:58 PM

qorkfiend: Gyrfalcon: Now is as good a time as any to ask a question that bugs me about this metric: What the hell does it mean "given up looking for a job"??

What does that mean? What CAN it mean? Does it mean that people have accepted living homeless and broke is now their lot in life and that they no longer even seek employment? Does it mean they've just stopped collecting unemployment? That they've merely stopped using regular (i.e. government tracked) employment agencies? Or that when asked, they flippantly replied, "Nah, I've stopped even looking for work"? Or were previously the unemployed job-seekers being classed as "employed" as in "employed in seeking employment"?

It seems to me there are only two states of being: Either you are employed or you are not. And regardless of whether you are "looking" for a job or have "given up looking" and resigned yourself to eating scraps from the dumpster behind McDonalds, in both cases you are NOT EMPLOYED.

Is there some other, third state of being regarding jobs I'm unaware of? Or is this like how the budget was artificially lowered by not counting war costs, only in reverse: "We've decided that the unemployed job-seekers are now officially unemployed and no longer officially...unemployed"?

I guess there's the people who aren't legally eligible to work.


Yeah, but that doesn't really answer the question "who or what are the people no longer looking for work"? Who are these people, and what the f*ck do they do? What does it mean "380,000 people are no longer looking for work"? How is that even determined?

I mean, I'm "looking for work", but not every minute of every day; I have other things I do some days that preclude me from actually "looking for work" on those days. So am I "unemployed" or just "not looking for work" on those days? And if I stop for a week and then start back up again, does that change my status? If someone is collecting unemployment AND looking for work, where do they fall on this graph?

It just seems to me to be a weird thing to say and a weird group to somehow "add" to the numbers of unemployed, since it seems to imply that job-seekers are neither employed nor unemployed; and that's impossible unless they work for Schrodinger.
 
2012-09-07 04:00:00 PM

skullkrusher: If the demand is not there,


It's almost as if slashing a metric assload of public sector jobs changed the "able" part of "willing and able" for those folks.
 
2012-09-07 04:00:21 PM
I love how most of the serious libs on here are so easily trolled...I mean if Obama personally told you to jump off a bridge tomorrow most of you guys on here wouldn't hesitate. I would just like to personally thank all of you for providing me with free entertainment throughout my day...The cutest thing is how you guys confuse your opinions with facts as well...
 
2012-09-07 04:00:23 PM

shastacola: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.


Yea, they have been slacking....

H. Res. 72 - Passed by the House (391-28) on February 11, 2011
H.R. 872 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 910 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.J. Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52
H.R. 2018 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1315 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2587 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2401 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2681 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2250 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2273 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3094 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3010 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 527 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 10 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1633 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1837 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2087 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4078 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 9 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4 - Signed into law by the President on April 14, 2011
H.R. 436 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 674 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011
H.R. 3630 - Signed into law by the President on February 22, 2012
H.R. 8 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 6169 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3078 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 3079 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 3080 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 1904 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 658 - Signed by the President on February 14, 2012
H.R. 4105 - Signed into law by the President on March 13, 2012
H.R. 4402 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1249 - Signed into law by the President on September 16, 2011
H.R. 2433 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011
H.R. 3606 - Signed into law by the President on March 3, 2012
H.R. 3012 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1230 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1229 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1231 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2021 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1938 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3408 - Passed by the House (237-187) on February 16, 2012
H.R. 2842 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2578 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4480 - Senate has taken no action to date 

/lame democrat(ic) talking point is lame
 
2012-09-07 04:00:31 PM
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

4.bp.blogspot.com

Fartbummer is killing our nation's children, one pack of Marlboro Reds at a time.
 
2012-09-07 04:00:36 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.

Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?


SOCIALISM and SHUT UP
 
2012-09-07 04:01:26 PM

soy_bomb: shastacola: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.

Yea, they have been slacking....

H. Res. 72 - Passed by the House (391-28) on February 11, 2011
H.R. 872 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 910 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.J. Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52
H.R. 2018 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1315 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2587 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2401 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2681 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2250 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2273 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3094 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3010 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 527 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 10 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1633 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1837 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2087 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4078 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 9 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4 - Signed into law by the President on April 14, 2011
H.R. 436 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 674 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011
H.R. 3630 - Signed into law by the President on February 22, 2012
H.R. 8 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 6169 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3078 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 3079 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 3080 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 1904 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 658 - Signed by the President on February 14, 2012
H.R. 4105 - Signed into law by the President on March 13, 2012
H.R. 4402 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1249 - Signed into law by the President on Septemb ...


Congrats, those bills mostly legitimately rape the environment. Next?
 
2012-09-07 04:01:33 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.

Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?


It's not necessarily the fault of the private sector, it's the fault of the trickle-down economic theory that has been put into place over the past decades. The private sector is doing what is best for themselves, which is how it should be.
 
2012-09-07 04:01:54 PM
It's funny the Democrats always tried to turned this into class warfare. Blame greedy Wall Street and then take credit for the rise in S&P and other market. Is Wall Street against Obama or not Libs, if Obama is so good for Wall Street. You can't have it both ways.

If Wall Street is so awesome then lets privatize Social Security and let everyone get in. How about it Libs? Want to take credit for the S&P now?

Let's not forget the smoke and mirrors BS that is QE. Government buying up stocks and record low volume in the markets
 
2012-09-07 04:02:12 PM

thurstonxhowell: leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?

[cdn3.hark.com image 320x240]

GUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!


Some do...
 
2012-09-07 04:02:14 PM

WhyteRaven74: And then there's the fact there are fewer people with money to buy what you make.


This is the crucial part that nobody on the right seems to grasp.
 
2012-09-07 04:02:40 PM

soy_bomb: shastacola: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.

Yea, they have been slacking....


Oooh, research time.
 
2012-09-07 04:02:48 PM
Are you better off than you were a few years ago?

www.nndb.com

Trick question....

Yes: 72 virgins, biatches!
 
2012-09-07 04:02:58 PM

soy_bomb: H.J. Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52


You hate Net Neutrality?

How would that bill do anything in terms of jobs?
 
2012-09-07 04:03:11 PM
It's wrong to jump up and down on a fragile economy like Dems did preceding the last election.

Go shopping or the Republicans win.

Oh wait...
 
2012-09-07 04:03:17 PM

leviosaurus: MisterLoki: [i568.photobucket.com image 380x446]

People keep posting that as if it means Obama is a lock for re-election. If that's what you think it means, then you don't understand what it says. Those aren't poll numbers, they're odds. It's saying Romney has a little worse than a 1 in 4 chance of winning the election. Sure, Obama is in a better position, but that is a long, long way from certain victory. Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun? If you're an Obama supporter and that sounds like lousy odds to you, then you shouldn't be happy with these numbers.


Wow. Thanks.
 
2012-09-07 04:03:21 PM

WhyteRaven74: Yes it is.


No, it categorically is not. People of retirement age are considered "not in the labor force" and are not counted at all in that number. See this table

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

and this definition of what it means to be in the labor force from here

http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf

Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

You'll notice in the BLS' chart above that that category is accounted for separately and is not part of the number we're discussing. You're wrong.
 
2012-09-07 04:03:31 PM
i48.tinypic.com

soy_bomb: shastacola: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.

Yea, they have been slacking....

DERP RESOLUTIONS ...


Show us all the jobs bills from the GOP-controlled House that weren't laced with (1) supply-side horseshiat and/or (2) conservative social policy farkery.
 
2012-09-07 04:03:50 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.


that wasn't what got us into this mess but ok.

ignatius_crumbcake: Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?


ok, you blame the monolithic "private sector". We'll ignore legitimate concerns about the future weighing on expansion for argument's sake. Now what?
 
2012-09-07 04:04:02 PM

coeyagi: Congrats, those bills mostly legitimately rape the environment. Next?


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-07 04:04:13 PM

qorkfiend: There's absolutely no incentive to think long-term.


Well yeah, but that gets into the fact the people running things now aren't like the people who used to run things. And that's not a good thing.
 
2012-09-07 04:04:26 PM

WhyteRaven74: This used to be standard for every CEO


EVERY CEO? Prove it.
 
2012-09-07 04:04:39 PM

coeyagi: soy_bomb: shastacola: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.

Yea, they have been slacking....

H. Res. 72 - Passed by the House (391-28) on February 11, 2011
H.R. 872 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 910 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.J. Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52
H.R. 2018 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1315 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2587 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2401 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2681 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2250 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2273 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3094 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3010 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 527 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 10 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1633 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1837 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2087 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4078 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 9 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4 - Signed into law by the President on April 14, 2011
H.R. 436 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 674 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011
H.R. 3630 - Signed into law by the President on February 22, 2012
H.R. 8 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 6169 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3078 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 3079 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 3080 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 1904 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 658 - Signed by the President on February 14, 2012
H.R. 4105 - Signed into law by the President on March 13, 2012
H.R. 4402 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1249 - Signed into law by the President ...


The fact he's too chickenshiat to put the title of those bills in front of it's designated number shows that even he knows those bills would do jackshiat to spur job growth.
 
2012-09-07 04:04:44 PM

Pincy: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.

Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?

It's not necessarily the fault of the private sector, it's the fault of the trickle-down economic theory that has been put into place over the past decades. The private sector is doing what is best for themselves, which is how it should be.


well lookie here
 
2012-09-07 04:05:04 PM

BigJake: EVERY CEO? Prove it.


Hell, I'll take any 30 or 40 that have said something like that
 
2012-09-07 04:05:36 PM
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

media.salon.com

"Obama... made me smoke crack....

But Grover Norquist called me Big Gubermint and drowned me in the bathtub."
 
2012-09-07 04:05:53 PM

leviosaurus: thurstonxhowell: leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?

[cdn3.hark.com image 320x240]

GUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

erm... a four chamber revolver. That's what I actually said. The filter must've messed it up. Yeah, that's the ticket.


gunwebsites.net
 
2012-09-07 04:06:04 PM

phreezen: It's funny the Democrats always tried to turned this into class warfare.


i45.tinypic.com

TIL that "fighting back" means "you started a nonexistent war".

*litany of graphs/charts, not posting them all over again as dolts pretend they're not real*
 
2012-09-07 04:06:33 PM

soy_bomb: coeyagi: Congrats, those bills mostly legitimately rape the environment. Next?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]


Yes, they do.
 
2012-09-07 04:06:33 PM

Pincy: . The private sector is doing what is best for themselves


Except it's not.

skullkrusher: We'll ignore legitimate concerns about the future


Such as?
 
2012-09-07 04:07:20 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: WhyteRaven74: And then there's the fact there are fewer people with money to buy what you make.

This is the crucial part that nobody on the right seems to grasp.


I just got through reading the new Krugman book and the one point he makes over and over again is "your spending is my income". Economies grow when more people have more money to spend.
 
2012-09-07 04:07:50 PM

gameshowhost: skullkrusher: If the demand is not there,

It's almost as if slashing a metric assload of public sector jobs changed the "able" part of "willing and able" for those folks.


Don't worry. Businesses which fire people for no reason don't tend to last long
 
2012-09-07 04:08:16 PM

SlothB77: There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America


So, you excluded the under 16 year olds when you wanted the % number to be high and then re-included them wen you wanted the % number to be low? That is farking AWESOME!!!

/let's not even talk about old people
 
2012-09-07 04:08:29 PM

WhyteRaven74: skullkrusher: We'll ignore legitimate concerns about the future

Such as?


The black guy winning again.
 
2012-09-07 04:08:33 PM

coeyagi: soy_bomb: coeyagi: Congrats, those bills mostly legitimately rape the environment. Next?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]

Yes, they do.


One of those bills was a bill to stop Net Neutrality.

I couldn't take the rest seriously after that.
 
2012-09-07 04:08:56 PM

WhyteRaven74: Pincy: . The private sector is doing what is best for themselves

Except it's not.

skullkrusher: We'll ignore legitimate concerns about the future

Such as?


such as consumer sentiment, aggregate demand, central bank actions, sovereign debt defaults, oil shocks, bank failures... are you for real?
 
2012-09-07 04:09:13 PM

Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?


www.motifake.com

Raspberry pie is best pie.
 
2012-09-07 04:09:18 PM

skullkrusher: Pincy: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.

Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?

It's not necessarily the fault of the private sector, it's the fault of the trickle-down economic theory that has been put into place over the past decades. The private sector is doing what is best for themselves, which is how it should be.

well lookie here


I'm sorry, did I say something earth-shattering?
 
2012-09-07 04:09:24 PM

gameshowhost: phreezen: It's funny the Democrats always tried to turned this into class warfare.

[i45.tinypic.com image 480x408]

TIL that "fighting back" means "you started a nonexistent war".

*litany of graphs/charts, not posting them all over again as dolts pretend they're not real*


Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market. Is Wall Street for or against Obama? You can't have it both ways.
 
2012-09-07 04:09:30 PM
The only economics that work are those in which exploitation is fought the most; both exploitation by big business and exploitation by government against individuals or institutions
 
2012-09-07 04:09:43 PM
For those of you asserting that Obama is a failure, please answer two questions:

1. How would President McCain have done better; and
2. How would President Romney do better.

Thank you.
 
2012-09-07 04:09:44 PM

Brick-House: 23.1 million not working... Not that anyone (Obama) is counting.


Wrong; that's unemployed AND "underemployed"
 
2012-09-07 04:10:08 PM

WhyteRaven74: Pincy: . The private sector is doing what is best for themselves

Except it's not.


Well, what they think is best for themselves maybe.
 
2012-09-07 04:10:21 PM

skullkrusher: Don't worry. Businesses which fire people for no reason don't tend to last long


www.baltimoresun.com
 
2012-09-07 04:10:47 PM

skullkrusher: such as consumer sentiment, aggregate demand


Two things the private sector can do something about. Like by paying higher wages. Why would an American company care if some foreign government defaults on its debt unless it happens to hold some of it? Oil shocks? That has always been a possibility, funny how it never really worried people much.
 
2012-09-07 04:10:56 PM

TIKIMAN87: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Bush still created 5 times more jobs than were lost in the last months of his presidency.

That graph is misleading.


Stop counting Chinese jobs
 
2012-09-07 04:11:15 PM
img692.imageshack.us

Things are lookin' up
 
2012-09-07 04:11:27 PM
Obama should just do what Dubya did when he noticed the unemployment rate staring to trend upwards.

Start a couple of wars
 
2012-09-07 04:11:42 PM

Pincy: Well, what they think is best for themselves maybe.


Yeah it's that, and that's kind of where the problem is.
 
2012-09-07 04:11:43 PM
So do we blame the president or the fact that a Minority party in congress has Filibustered almost every attempt to pass legislation to create jobs.
 
2012-09-07 04:11:50 PM

TIKIMAN87: Obama has all 3 branches in his first 2 years


How many times do you need to be called out on this lie before you stop poluting threads with it?
 
2012-09-07 04:12:00 PM

leviosaurus: thurstonxhowell: leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?

[cdn3.hark.com image 320x240]

GUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

erm... a four chamber revolver. That's what I actually said. The filter must've messed it up. Yeah, that's the ticket.


upload.wikimedia.org

Think of it this way - Silver is saying that if Romney rolls a 4 with one of these die, then he wins. If you've ever been a D&D nerd, you've thrown one of these a bunch of times and you know that is not a roll you want to bet the country on.
 
2012-09-07 04:12:30 PM

gameshowhost: TheDumbBlonde: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Every time a Farker posts an Obama Job Creation graphic some gets a job,

Every time you make an assertion, a mongoloid is born.


Really?
 
2012-09-07 04:12:40 PM
More about HJ 37:

Dear FreedomWorks member,

As one of our million-plus FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your representatives and ask them to vote YES on H.J. Res 37 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from imposing net neutrality regulations on Internet providers. These job-killing regulations would involve significant new controls on the Internet that would have significant implications for investing in innovation and broadband deployment.

Net neutrality is likely to cripple competition, restrict innovation, reduce employment and raise costs for all consumers-all of which would only exacerbate the current economic downturn. These new regulations would make the government the arbiter of broadband allocation and leave broadband providers with little say over their own networks. Despite claims from net neutrality regulation supporters, the Internet is a very competitive place. Net neutrality regulations are a solution in search of a problem, with no evidence that broadband providers are restricting any Internet user's access to websites on the Internet.

The last thing that the American people need is a government takeover of the Internet. Congress has repeatedly rejected net neutrality legislation. The FCC should respect this fact-and the careful separation of power laid out in the US Constitution-and not make such sweeping law where the legislature has not. The FCC's net neutrality regulations would restrict the freedom of all Internet users while further harming our fragile economy. New York Law School Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute recently found that net neutrality would cost the U.S. economy at least 100,000 to 200,000 jobs per year over the next five years. We must ensure that the Internet remains competitive and free by fighting a government takeover of the Internet.

I urge you to call your representatives and ask them to vote YES on Rep. Walden's (R-OR) H.J. Res 37 to disapprove of the rules submitted by the FCC with respect to regulating the Internet. We will count their vote on H.J. Res 37 as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2011. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the Jefferson Award, which recognizes members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom.

Sincerely,

Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
FreedomWorks
 
2012-09-07 04:12:55 PM

IXI Jim IXI: Obama should just do what Dubya did when he noticed the unemployment rate staring to trend upwards.

Start a couple of wars


Well, he was for the wars like the Dems but let's ignore that fact.
 
2012-09-07 04:13:06 PM

CPennypacker: Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.

If the GOP didn't want us to complain about how the worst president in US history savaged the economy they shouldn't have elected him.


the GOP didn't elect 0bama, the dems did.
 
2012-09-07 04:13:10 PM

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: If the demand is not there,

It's almost as if slashing a metric assload of public sector jobs changed the "able" part of "willing and able" for those folks.

Don't worry. Businesses which fire people for no reason don't tend to last long


Horseshiat. I don't see the GOP House losing control this year in any of the predictions. Quit pretending like they're not at the crux of the declining recovery.
 
2012-09-07 04:13:27 PM

Mrtraveler01: The fact he's too chickenshiat to put the title of those bills in front of it's designated number shows that even he knows those bills would do jackshiat to spur job growth.


Yeah the few I checked could all have had the same title- Remove any and all environmental restrictions so companies can rape the shiat out of the planet.
 
2012-09-07 04:14:09 PM

phreezen: gameshowhost: phreezen: It's funny the Democrats always tried to turned this into class warfare.

[i45.tinypic.com image 480x408]

TIL that "fighting back" means "you started a nonexistent war".

*litany of graphs/charts, not posting them all over again as dolts pretend they're not real*

Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market. Is Wall Street for or against Obama? You can't have it both ways.


So trickle-down doesn't work.
 
2012-09-07 04:15:01 PM

soy_bomb: shastacola: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.

Yea, they have been slacking....


- Passed by the House (391-28) on February 11, 2011
H.R. 872 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 910 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.J. Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52
H.R. 2018 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1315 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2587 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2401 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2681 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2250 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2273 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3094 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3010 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 527 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 10 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1633 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1837 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 2087 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4078 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 9 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 4 - Signed into law by the President on April 14, 2011
H.R. 436 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 674 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011
H.R. 3630 - Signed into law by the President on February 22, 2012
H.R. 8 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 6169 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 3078 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 3079 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 3080 - Signed by the President on October 21, 2011
H.R. 1904 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 658 - Signed by the President on February 14, 2012
H.R. 4105 - Signed into law by the President on March 13, 2012
H.R. 4402 - Senate has taken no action to date
H.R. 1249 - Signed into law by the President on Septemb ...



H. Res. 72:Directing certain standing committees to inventory and review existing, pending, and proposed regulations ...

HR 910:To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes

H.J.Res. 37: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices.



H.R. 2018:To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards, and for other purposes.


H.R. 1315:

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and ConsumerProtection Act to strengthen the review authorityof the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulationsissued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,to rescind the unobligated funding for the FHARefinance Program and to terminate the program, andfor other purposes.


Those are the first five on your list,none of them have anything to do with job creation. I'm not going to slug through the rest of them, the only thing you've proved is that you know how to cut and paste .
 
2012-09-07 04:16:01 PM

Pincy: I'm sorry, did I say something earth-shattering?


You agreed with the general concept that 'greed is good.' Corporations, like any other entity, act in their own self-interest. They are not altruistic, nor should they be. However, when corporations spend decades reducing the workforce and driving down wages while gutting the ability of workers to bargain for a better deal, all they do is reduce the amount of money flowing around the middle class. That means fewer people buying TVs and cars and eating at restaurants. They are hurting themselves in the long run by trying to boost profits in the short run.

What benefits the overall economy more: 100 people making an extra $10k a year, or one person making an extra $1 million?
 
2012-09-07 04:16:12 PM

gameshowhost: phreezen: gameshowhost: phreezen: It's funny the Democrats always tried to turned this into class warfare.

[i45.tinypic.com image 480x408]

TIL that "fighting back" means "you started a nonexistent war".

*litany of graphs/charts, not posting them all over again as dolts pretend they're not real*

Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market. Is Wall Street for or against Obama? You can't have it both ways.

So trickle-down doesn't work.


You want credit for Wall Street and record profits then turned it into class warfare?
 
2012-09-07 04:16:26 PM

TheDumbBlonde: gameshowhost: TheDumbBlonde: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Every time a Farker posts an Obama Job Creation graphic some gets a job,

Every time you make an assertion, a mongoloid is born.

Really?


*TEEHEE* yeah
 
2012-09-07 04:16:46 PM
Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

deadcelebrities2012.com

With 1 less banjo being played, we're all doing better.

//i keed
 
2012-09-07 04:17:31 PM

phreezen: Well, he was for the wars like the Dems but let's ignore that fact.


I guess you can't have your yellow cake and eat it too
 
2012-09-07 04:17:33 PM

Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: H.J. Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52

You hate Net Neutrality?

How would that bill do anything in terms of jobs?


It's almost as if he's including unrelated bills in his list to artificially inflate the numbers...
 
2012-09-07 04:17:35 PM

phreezen: gameshowhost: phreezen: gameshowhost: phreezen: It's funny the Democrats always tried to turned this into class warfare.

[i45.tinypic.com image 480x408]

TIL that "fighting back" means "you started a nonexistent war".

*litany of graphs/charts, not posting them all over again as dolts pretend they're not real*

Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market. Is Wall Street for or against Obama? You can't have it both ways.

So trickle-down doesn't work.

You want credit for Wall Street and record profits then turned it into class warfare?


You're really bad at this "thinking" business.
 
2012-09-07 04:17:36 PM
I love how they "Are we better off then 4 years ago?" turns into "Well were you better off in 2009 then in 2007"?

We are adding MANY more jobs now then we were at the end of the Bush admin (when we were losing tons of jobs), the stock market is also way higher.

Republicans want to use the 2009 numbers when Obama hadn't based anything and blame him for that. They don't want to talk about how there has been better job growth now then under the Bush admin.

I love how it's "Are you doing better now then 4 years ago" and then you say "yes, let me tell you!!" and there response is "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION BUSH YEARS!!!"
 
2012-09-07 04:17:54 PM

phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.


Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.
 
2012-09-07 04:18:30 PM

coeyagi: Al Franken wasn't confirmed until May, June 2009? Something like that. Then Kennedy dies in September 2009? I may be off by a month or two for each. And then Scott Brown gets in Jan 2010. So.... you're looking at about 4-6 months of filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.


www.lieberman.senate.gov
Wouldn't even say that.
 
2012-09-07 04:19:05 PM
Well my food is ready. Keep up with the lying and deceit, R|R Blowers.
 
2012-09-07 04:19:56 PM
Are you doing better than you were 4 years ago?

2.bp.blogspot.com

I'll take that as a 'No.'
 
2012-09-07 04:20:12 PM
Obama isn't at fault for the economy. Nor is Bush, nor would McCain be if he were president, as it would be exactly the same. Obama likewise isn't going to do anything to fix it, because he can't. Nor could Romney if he becomes president.

Global economy, etcetera.
 
2012-09-07 04:20:27 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: You agreed with the general concept that 'greed is good.'


No he didn't. He agreed with the general concept that you cannot expect anything other than greed from corporations.

ignatius_crumbcake: However, when corporations spend decades reducing the workforce and driving down wages while gutting the ability of workers to bargain for a better deal, all they do is reduce the amount of money flowing around the middle class.


He is saying you don't get to be shocked by this.

ignatius_crumbcake: They are hurting themselves in the long run by trying to boost profits in the short run.

What benefits the overall economy more: 100 people making an extra $10k a year, or one person making an extra $1 million?


A great argument for why all of the other businesses should hire 100 people at $10k a year but my business is still gonna do what is in its own best interest. Again, you don't get to be shocked by this.

What benefits society more, me spending $50,000 on feeding the homeless or me spending $50,000 on a car? Feeding the homeless of course but you don't get to be shocked when I act in my own best interest and buy the car instead.
 
2012-09-07 04:20:35 PM

Pincy: skullkrusher: Pincy: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.

Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?

It's not necessarily the fault of the private sector, it's the fault of the trickle-down economic theory that has been put into place over the past decades. The private sector is doing what is best for themselves, which is how it should be.

well lookie here

I'm sorry, did I say something earth-shattering?


no, that was my surprise
 
2012-09-07 04:21:25 PM

gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: If the demand is not there,

It's almost as if slashing a metric assload of public sector jobs changed the "able" part of "willing and able" for those folks.

Don't worry. Businesses which fire people for no reason don't tend to last long

Horseshiat. I don't see the GOP House losing control this year in any of the predictions. Quit pretending like they're not at the crux of the declining recovery.


I thought we were blaming the "private sector"?
 
2012-09-07 04:21:26 PM

topcon: Obama isn't at fault for the economy. Nor is Bush, nor would McCain be if he were president, as it would be exactly the same. Obama likewise isn't going to do anything to fix it, because he can't. Nor could Romney if he becomes president.

Global economy, etcetera.


Stop making sense!
 
2012-09-07 04:21:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.


Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.
 
2012-09-07 04:21:47 PM

topcon: Obama isn't at fault for the economy. Nor is Bush, nor would McCain be if he were president, as it would be exactly the same. Obama likewise isn't going to do anything to fix it, because he can't. Nor could Romney if he becomes president.

Global economy, etcetera.


That's why all countries have the same economy. Business is booming in Somalia I hear.
 
2012-09-07 04:23:33 PM

phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.


You're just rambling at this point.
 
2012-09-07 04:23:39 PM

justtray: unexplained bacon:


SlothB77: DERP


Don't bother, they're ficticous.


THey came from here:

For a couple years I've been blaming it on
lack of sleep and too much pressure from my
job, but now I found out the real reason:
I'm tired because I'm overworked.

The population of this country is 237
million.

104 million are retired.

That leaves 133 million to do the work.

There are 85 million in school, which leaves
48 million to do the work.

Of this there are 29 million employed by
the federal government, leaving 19 million
to do the work.

2.8 million are in the Armed Forces, which
leaves 16.2 million to do the work.

Take from the total the 14,800,000 people
who work for State and City Governments and
that leaves 1.4 million to do the work.

At any given time there are 188,000 people
in hospitals, leaving 1,212,000 to do the
work.

Now, there are 1,211,998 people in prisons.
That leaves just two people to do the work.

You and me.
And you're sitting at your computer reading jokes!


/oblig
 
2012-09-07 04:23:50 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Pincy: I'm sorry, did I say something earth-shattering?

You agreed with the general concept that 'greed is good.' Corporations, like any other entity, act in their own self-interest. They are not altruistic, nor should they be. However, when corporations spend decades reducing the workforce and driving down wages while gutting the ability of workers to bargain for a better deal, all they do is reduce the amount of money flowing around the middle class. That means fewer people buying TVs and cars and eating at restaurants. They are hurting themselves in the long run by trying to boost profits in the short run.

What benefits the overall economy more: 100 people making an extra $10k a year, or one person making an extra $1 million?


Ya, I agree. My point was that the fault does not necessarily lie with the private sector but rather with the system we have put in place that allows this to happen. I wasn't saying I approve of how things work currently, because I don't. I was saying that we need to reverse the trickle-down incentives that have been put in place over the past decades.
 
2012-09-07 04:23:53 PM

Elandriel: Nadie_AZ: make me some tea: impaler: Do we really need this thread again?
Link

Every 4 hours until everyone is in agreement.

Fine. I agree that cherry pie is the best pie. Anyone want to carry the motion?

Depends. Do we include pies such as French Silk? If yes, die in hell. If no, then cherry pie while a contender does not stand against the combined might of strawberry and rhubarb. That unholy fusion was crafted from the prince of temptation himself.


I have nothing else to contribute to this thread, so allow me to say you use your tongue prettier than a $20 whore.

/not obscure in the LEAST, especially on here.
 
2012-09-07 04:24:24 PM

TIKIMAN87: Mrtraveler01: TIKIMAN87: Oh...forgot to add the total labor force is as low as it was in 1981.

Obummer the failure.

And the trend started under Bush. Funny huh?

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

Explain to me how enumployment has dropped from over 10% to 8% with more and more people not working?

You see it's easy for the rate to drop when you simply stop counting people.


Because of Obamacare seniors are now living longer post retirement!
 
2012-09-07 04:24:38 PM
While expecting the Benank to change course at this point is ridiculous he should really avoid announcing anything before the election.

If the market can survive two months without official announcement of QE the market ain't real.

Oh wait...
 
2012-09-07 04:24:49 PM

skullkrusher: Pincy: skullkrusher: Pincy: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.

Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?

It's not necessarily the fault of the private sector, it's the fault of the trickle-down economic theory that has been put into place over the past decades. The private sector is doing what is best for themselves, which is how it should be.

well lookie here

I'm sorry, did I say something earth-shattering?

no, that was my surprise


So you agree that trickle-down economics has pretty much been a complete failure?
 
2012-09-07 04:24:58 PM

FlyRicky: TIKIMAN87: Mrtraveler01: TIKIMAN87: Oh...forgot to add the total labor force is as low as it was in 1981.

Obummer the failure.

And the trend started under Bush. Funny huh?

[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

Explain to me how enumployment has dropped from over 10% to 8% with more and more people not working?

You see it's easy for the rate to drop when you simply stop counting people.

Because of Obamacare seniors are now living longer post retirement!


Because of Obamacare?
 
2012-09-07 04:24:59 PM

coeyagi: Are you better off than you were 4 Years Ago?

[images.zap2it.com image 540x720]

Damn you, Fartbongo!


Hey, he had problems with Willard too.

i.usatoday.net
 
2012-09-07 04:25:14 PM
The only way we will ever really see low unemployment again is if we make huge changes to our way of thinking about work and consumption. Productivity increases in the past decades have basically meant that fewer people working are able to meet the needs of a larger population, and that trend will only continue to increase as automation gets better and more jobs are able to be accomplished by fewer people still.

What will happen when there is literally no reason to have a human being driving a truck, flying a plane, running a train, piloting a boat, etc.? What will happen when a huge warehouse can be managed by a tiny team of humans? What will happen when pharmacists, medical technicians and even doctors get replaced by automated systems? This stuff is happening now, and will be happening faster and faster sooner rather than later so we need to come up with plans now, need to adjust our expectations now, and need to get ready for the future now.

Change overtime laws to make anything over 20 hours a week overtime, and remove exempt positions. Make anything under 10 hours a week part-time and anything over count as full time. Double the minimum wage, move health care to single-payer, and mandate that the differential between the highest and lowest paid positions at a company (including temporary workers) may be no more than 25x, and that employees at every level get stock/profit sharing at a similar kind of rate. If the CEO gets 25000 shares, the lowest paid employee would get at least 1000, etc. The CEOs will still be doing just fine, and workers will get a fair shake too.

To benefit employers, offer substantial tax incentives to firms that are hiring and growing, and substantial tax penalties for firms that are laying off workers. Make the benefits and wages a firm offers employees part of the criteria for government and municipal contracts - the higher median wage, the better chance of getting large municipal contracts, all other things (like performance) being equal.

You'll have more people working less time to make the same amount of money (relatively), and will boost quality of life vastly for most people, allowing families to have more time together, parents more time to actually raise their kids, and all the benefits that provides.

On top of that, invest in infrastructure and hire and train people to do that. Cut the defense budget in half and take that money to spend on things like improving our communications networks (why the hell can't I get cheap fiber optic to my home in Chicago? Why isn't there the equivalent of a Manhattan project for repairing bridges, railways, etc. in this country?)

We have the money - we just spend it on destruction instead of creation. We have good people, smart people, people eager to work, so let's put them to work.

Or we could just give millionaires more tax cuts and spend all our money killing brown people, I guess.
 
2012-09-07 04:25:15 PM

WhyteRaven74: Why would an American company care if some foreign government defaults on its debt unless it happens to hold some of it?


You think that a default on Greek or Spanish or wherever debt would only impact holders of that debt?

WhyteRaven74: Oil shocks? That has always been a possibility, funny how it never really worried people much.


what's new about the current environment? Hmm... is there something going on that could see the closure of a major strait somewhere? If you can't recognize the dicey global environment in many regards for whatever reason, not much I can do.

You'll have to trust me. shiat is really iffy out there. Companies are not going to start spending a bunch of money on expansion until things become less iffy.
 
2012-09-07 04:25:25 PM

phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.


Holy farking shiat. The stock market is only great if Mrt invests all of his retirement in the stock market? What if he doesn't? Holy farking shiat Mrt I don't think you understand how critical it is you invest all of your money immediately. Corporate profits are apparently hinging on your decision here. That's the way the world works.
 
2012-09-07 04:25:35 PM

Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

You're just rambling at this point.


No, you haven't got a response. Like I've said, Dems want to make this issue about class warfare.
 
2012-09-07 04:26:38 PM

Pincy: skullkrusher: Pincy: skullkrusher: Pincy: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: so your plan is to blame the private sector for not doing stuff that will reduce their profitability?

How do you think we got into this mess? Reducing wages and decreasing the number of employees doing the same amount of work leads to higher corporate profits but also higher unemployment.

Corporate profits are higher than ever right now but wages and hiring have not bounced back. How isn't that the fault of the private sector?

It's not necessarily the fault of the private sector, it's the fault of the trickle-down economic theory that has been put into place over the past decades. The private sector is doing what is best for themselves, which is how it should be.

well lookie here

I'm sorry, did I say something earth-shattering?

no, that was my surprise

So you agree that trickle-down economics has pretty much been a complete failure?


have you ever seen me propose trickle-down as a good idea? Difficulty: your imagination doesn't count

That said, I don't think that trickle-down is really the issue with the current lack of hiring but you were right on with what you said re the private sector
 
2012-09-07 04:26:56 PM

phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

You're just rambling at this point.

No, you haven't got a response. Like I've said, Dems want to make this issue about class warfare.


How is any of this crap "Class Warfare"?
 
2012-09-07 04:26:57 PM
graphjam.files.wordpress.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
cdn.theatlantic.com
 
2012-09-07 04:27:18 PM

leviosaurus: thurstonxhowell: leviosaurus: Would you play Russian Roulette with a four barrel gun?

[cdn3.hark.com image 320x240]

GUNS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

erm... a four chamber revolver. That's what I actually said. The filter must've messed it up. Yeah, that's the ticket.


media.liveauctiongroup.net
 
2012-09-07 04:27:21 PM

skullkrusher: You'll have to trust me. shiat is really iffy out there. Companies are not going to start spending a bunch of money on expansion until things become less iffy.


That's the argument for the stimulus.
 
2012-09-07 04:27:53 PM

lennavan: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

Holy farking shiat. The stock market is only great if Mrt invests all of his retirement in the stock market? What if he doesn't? Holy farking shiat Mrt I don't think you understand how critical it is you invest all of your money immediately. Corporate profits are apparently hinging on your decision here. That's the way the world works.


No one say you have to do anything.
 
2012-09-07 04:28:31 PM

phreezen: lennavan: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

Holy farking shiat. The stock market is only great if Mrt invests all of his retirement in the stock market? What if he doesn't? Holy farking shiat Mrt I don't think you understand how critical it is you invest all of your money immediately. Corporate profits are apparently hinging on your decision here. That's the way the world works.

No one say you have to do anything.


I'm still figuring out how any of this is "class warfare".
 
2012-09-07 04:28:40 PM
I'm just going to leave this here, since some of you farkers can obviously benefit from my political science class rant:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/young-adults-jobs/index. h tml?hpt=hp_t1

This article/television broadcast caught my attention because I do not think CNN is doing the subject full justice. They are commenting on the fact that 400,000 young people (aged 18-24) have dropped out of the "seeking employment" numbers. I do not think that this is an entirely a BAD economic indicator. Here is why: some of those young people are doing things other than look for traditional jobs. Many of them may have given up on finding the job they wanted and started small businesses of their own, which is good for the economy long term. Others may have decided to go to college or trade school full time, meaning that when they re-enter the workforce, they will be more qualified and will be looking for better paying, more skilled jobs, instead of fast food jobs.
Is it sad that not everybody looking for a full time permanent job can not find one? Yes. But just because someone is NOT actively seeking employment does not mean that they have necessarily started living in a tent and foraging for food. There are other explanations. It irritates me when "news" organizations see everything in purely good or bad terms and do not attempt to look at the entire overall picture. This recession has been tough on many people, and I am not disrespecting the fact that many people have looked for work for a very long time, exhausting their resources in the process. I am, however, saying that it has caused people to take different routes, that may not be bad overall. For example, some people that were not planning to retire at all, are doing so because they can not find work. Those people who are eligible for Social Security this year alone amount to up to 19,000 workers per day leaving the workforce. http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1150 That's not a completely bad thing, although it will strain the Social Security system. Those are experienced workers leaving high paying jobs, but they are leaving behind positions that can be filled by people not eligible for retirement, those who are 30, 40, or 50 and have families to feed.
There are people who are 30-50 who are giving up and moving out of areas where unemployment is high, like down here in the southern states, and moving to areas where unemployment is lower, in the northern and eastern states where there is a shortage of skilled labor. These are natural adjustments that people make in a bad economy. It may not be what they planned to do with their lives, but it may be their only option, to move to where the work is.
Just this week, NPR was reporting that truck sales are at the highest level in three years. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=160529689 That means that not only are more trucks being built and sold by the big three automakers, but that construction companies (the largest buyer of trucks in the country) are expanding, and buying new equipment. It has not escaped my attention that the "main stream" media outlets are silent on this economic news.
There are also people giving up, who have skills that they decide are marketable as independent businesses. Those people may never have gotten up the nerve to start their own bookkeeping, welding, cake decorating, whatever business, but suddenly, when given no other way to earn a living, they are doing so, and many of them will be successful and become job creators themselves. As long as the government is able to keep the credit markets lose enough that people can obtain small business loans, this trend is bound to continue.
I wish the people responsible for news in this country could look at issues like employment numbers from multiple angles, rather than the just following the most negative aspect of a story. It is not about who is President, it is about giving Americans hope when things will improve for the nation as a whole, so that they do not lose hope if their area is still suffering badly. During the recession of 2001, MSNBC and CNN certainly helped fuel the economic down turn because they started predicting a double dip recession before the smoke had even cleared in New York City. http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/30/news/economy/double_dip_recession/inde x.htm In many cases I think that media themselves are dragging the economic indicators down now because when the do this sort of reporting, it discourages people, makes them stop spending money out of fear, and that in turns shrinks the overall demand and the economy as a whole suffers for it. I am not suggesting that they are motivate purely by politics, but they are motivated by viewers, and as long as we, as Americans, tune in for the bad news, rather than the good, and take the media's word for it that we are getting the whole story, the media will continue to give lopsided economic coverage.
 
2012-09-07 04:29:13 PM

phreezen: lennavan: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

Holy farking shiat. The stock market is only great if Mrt invests all of his retirement in the stock market? What if he doesn't? Holy farking shiat Mrt I don't think you understand how critical it is you invest all of your money immediately. Corporate profits are apparently hinging on your decision here. That's the way the world works.

No one say you have to do anything.


Not me, Mrt does though. You said the stock market and corporate profits hinge on where he puts his retirement money. Either he puts all of his money in the stock market, or it tanks. We can't have it both ways!
 
2012-09-07 04:30:57 PM

Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

You're just rambling at this point.

No, you haven't got a response. Like I've said, Dems want to make this issue about class warfare.

How is any of this crap "Class Warfare"?


It's not class warfare? What with all those greedy Wall Street/Corporate talk?
 
2012-09-07 04:31:03 PM

gameshowhost: Well my food is ready. Keep up with the lying and deceit, R|R Blowers.


Mommy got your bagel bites and choclate milk ready?
 
2012-09-07 04:31:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: I'm still figuring out how any of this is "class warfare".


You're obviously envious of the pre-rich.
 
2012-09-07 04:31:33 PM

lennavan: phreezen: lennavan: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

Holy farking shiat. The stock market is only great if Mrt invests all of his retirement in the stock market? What if he doesn't? Holy farking shiat Mrt I don't think you understand how critical it is you invest all of your money immediately. Corporate profits are apparently hinging on your decision here. That's the way the world works.

No one say you have to do anything.

Not me, Mrt does though. You said the stock market and corporate profits hinge on where he puts his retirement money. Either he puts all of his money in the stock market, or it tanks. We can't have it both ways!


I have to put all my money in the stock market or else it's CLASS WARFARE!!!!!

phreezen told me so!
 
2012-09-07 04:31:35 PM

lennavan: phreezen: lennavan: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

Holy farking shiat. The stock market is only great if Mrt invests all of his retirement in the stock market? What if he doesn't? Holy farking shiat Mrt I don't think you understand how critical it is you invest all of your money immediately. Corporate profits are apparently hinging on your decision here. That's the way the world works.

No one say you have to do anything.

Not me, Mrt does though. You said the stock market and corporate profits hinge on where he puts his retirement money. Either he puts all of his money in the stock market, or it tanks. We can't have it both ways!


No I did not
 
2012-09-07 04:32:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: lennavan: phreezen: lennavan: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

Holy farking shiat. The stock market is only great if Mrt invests all of his retirement in the stock market? What if he doesn't? Holy farking shiat Mrt I don't think you understand how critical it is you invest all of your money immediately. Corporate profits are apparently hinging on your decision here. That's the way the world works.

No one say you have to do anything.

Not me, Mrt does though. You said the stock market and corporate profits hinge on where he puts his retirement money. Either he puts all of his money in the stock market, or it tanks. We can't have it both ways!

I have to put all my money in the stock market or else it's CLASS WARFARE!!!!!

phreezen told me so!


Where did I say that?
 
2012-09-07 04:33:02 PM

phreezen: lennavan: phreezen: lennavan: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways.
Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

Holy farking shiat. The stock market is only great if Mrt invests all of his retirement in the stock market? What if he doesn't? Holy farking shiat Mrt I don't think you understand how critical it is you invest all of your money immediately. Corporate profits are apparently hinging on your decision here. That's the way the world works.

No one say you have to do anything.

Not me, Mrt does though. You said the stock market and corporate profits hinge on where he puts his retirement money. Either he puts all of his money in the stock market, or it tanks. We can't have it both ways!

No I did not


It's actually in your post.
 
2012-09-07 04:33:12 PM

skullkrusher: You think that a default on Greek or Spanish or wherever debt would only impact holders of that debt?


It would have some ripples, but if you're an American company producing things for American consumers, not really a worry unless you get all your materials from Spain and Greece. And if you're an American company producing things some of which are sold in those places, those markets are already not doing well, and in the case of Greece it's not even a very big market. And in any case, whatever they do has little to do with what's to be done in the US.

skullkrusher: . is there something going on that could see the closure of a major strait somewhere? I


Iran isn't exactly getting jumpy over the strait of Hormuz....
 
2012-09-07 04:33:16 PM

phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

You're just rambling at this point.

No, you haven't got a response. Like I've said, Dems want to make this issue about class warfare.

How is any of this crap "Class Warfare"?

It's not class warfare? What with all those greedy Wall Street/Corporate talk?


So complaining about how they're taking advantage of the tax code in order to pay less taxes than me is "Class Warfare"?
 
2012-09-07 04:34:15 PM

soy_bomb: coeyagi: Congrats, those bills mostly legitimately rape the environment. Next?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]


Saying those bills are mostly about deregulating to enhance profits and not jobs is moving goalposts?

/the others are tax cuts for millionaires job creators, right?
 
2012-09-07 04:35:34 PM

Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.


So then the question "Are we doing better than we were 4 years ago?" is now not a valid question when the answer is yes?
 
2012-09-07 04:35:37 PM

skullkrusher: That said, I don't think that trickle-down is really the issue with the current lack of hiring but you were right on with what you said re the private sector


Yes, it is. If more people had more money to spend then demand would be greater and the private sector would be creating more jobs. Trickle-down has created an economic environment which keeps this from happening.

As far as what I said about the private sector, it's economics 101, that's the way Capitalism works. But I'm not saying I think we should be a 100% Capitalist economy. I think government has an important role to play in the economy and that role has been abused by the 1% over the past decades. It's time to take it back for the rest of us.
 
2012-09-07 04:37:05 PM

Pincy: Yes, it is. If more people had more money to spend then demand would be greater and the private sector would be creating more jobs. Trickle-down has created an economic environment which keeps this from happening.


explain
 
2012-09-07 04:38:18 PM

Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

You're just rambling at this point.

No, you haven't got a response. Like I've said, Dems want to make this issue about class warfare.

How is any of this crap "Class Warfare"?

It's not class warfare? What with all those greedy Wall Street/Corporate talk?

So complaining about how they're taking advantage of the tax code in order to pay less taxes than me is "Class Warfare"?


This is about taxes now? Rich should pay more?
 
2012-09-07 04:38:29 PM

Mrtraveler01: I'm still figuring out how any of this is "class warfare".


Class warfare is what we will have (eventually) in this country if two key rapepublican policy outcomes continue: 1) increasing the wealth gap, and 2) making sure everybody can buy as many guns as they want.
 
2012-09-07 04:38:31 PM

metztli: The only way we will ever really see low unemployment again is if we make huge changes to our way of thinking about work and consumption. Productivity increases in the past decades have basically meant that fewer people working are able to meet the needs of a larger population, and that trend will only continue to increase as automation gets better and more jobs are able to be accomplished by fewer people still.

What will happen when there is literally no reason to have a human being driving a truck, flying a plane, running a train, piloting a boat, etc.? What will happen when a huge warehouse can be managed by a tiny team of humans? What will happen when pharmacists, medical technicians and even doctors get replaced by automated systems? This stuff is happening now, and will be happening faster and faster sooner rather than later so we need to come up with plans now, need to adjust our expectations now, and need to get ready for the future now.



funny how 0bama whined that we don't have job growth due to ATMs and automatic ticket machines at airports...

oh wait, were you serious?

isn't it easier to just outlaw technology and progress?
 
2012-09-07 04:39:23 PM

phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

You're just rambling at this point.

No, you haven't got a response. Like I've said, Dems want to make this issue about class warfare.

How is any of this crap "Class Warfare"?

It's not class warfare? What with all those greedy Wall Street/Corporate talk?

So complaining about how they're taking advantage of the tax code in order to pay less taxes than me is "Class Warfare"?

This is about taxes now? Rich should pay more?


So I'm confused then. What did I say that has you biatching about "Class Warfare"?
 
2012-09-07 04:39:34 PM
i predict that if Romney wins his first budget will be the largest in US history
 
2012-09-07 04:41:13 PM

Corvus: Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.

So then the question "Are we doing better than we were 4 years ago?" is now not a valid question when the answer is yes?


The answer "yes" is a subjective one. For example, 4 years ago you had a massive hemorage, and the doctor said you'd be up and around by now. However, you are still in critical but stable condition. Are you better? Yes. Would you get a second opinion? Probably.
 
2012-09-07 04:43:18 PM
s/7314224/79226024#c79226024" target="_blank">WhyteRaven74: It would have some ripples, but if you're an American company producing things for American consumers, not really a worry unless you get all your materials from Spain and Greece.

I'm sorry but that is just way too nearsighted. You know who are huge holders of Spanish and Greek debt? Banks. You know what happens when counterparties default on the assets held by banks? 2007. What do banks do? They offer credit. Can you see how massive writedowns of sovereign debt would be a bad thing for the economy of the world? Both in terms of corporations and consumers? Since when are corporations limited to US shores in terms of customers, anyway?

WhyteRaven74: Iran isn't exactly getting jumpy over the strait of Hormuz....

if you were a company which relied heavily on oil or gas prices staying under control, would you bet several hundred million dollars on WhyteRaven74's nonchalance regarding Iran? I wouldn't.
 
2012-09-07 04:43:27 PM
H. Res. 72 - (no action) This bill tells major departments to basically audit themselves and do a book report on it. There is no action taken by anyone involved beyond a paperwork drill.
H.R. 872 - (no action) This bill removes authority by both the state and the EPA to prevent people from spraying pesticides into navigable waters.
H.R. 910 - (no action) This bill eliminates the ability of the EPA to control greenhouse gasses for purposes of mitigating climate change.
H.J. Res. 37 - (voted down by Senate) This bill eliminates Net Neutrality
H.R. 2018 - (no action) This bill effectively transfers all control of water pollution to the states.
H.R. 1315 - (no action) This bill allows the two Dodd-Frank regulatory agencies to overrule eachother when it comes to striking down regulations. It also creates piles of paperwork when creating new regulations. It also vaporizes the FHA home lone program.
H.R. 2587 - (no action) This bill prevents the NLRB from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment for any reason.
H.R. 2401 - (no action) This bill guts the Clean Air Act, while adding roadblocks to most EPA programs.
H.R. 2681 - (no action) This bill exempts the cement industry from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and from trash incineration hazardous materials standards
H.R. 2250 - (no action) This bill eliminates a swath of hazardous material standards and hamstrings potential future replacement of these regulations
H.R. 2273 - (no action) This bill allows states to let coal power plants dump their waste in landfills
H.R. 3094 - (no action) This bill lets the NLRB determine the unit allowed to collectively bargain, rather than organization by company, shop, plant, etc.
H.R. 3010 - (no action) This bill requires a huge amount of paperwork drills to be run before executive branch rules changes can be enacted
H.R. 527 - (no action) This bill expands the RFA to tribal organizations.
H.R. 10 - (no action) This bill requires every single regulatory change to pass through Congress first.
H.R. 1633 - (no action) This bill prevents the EPA from regulating any air quality standard relating to particles greater than 2.5 micrometers.
H.R. 1837 - (no action) This bill adds sturgeon to the San Joaquin River.
H.R. 2087 - (no action) This bill removes all deed restrictions to a 31.6 acre parcel of land in Accomack County, Virginia.
H.R. 4078 - (no action) This bill prohibits any significant regulatory action until unemployment is less than 6%.
H.R. 9 - (no action) This bill is a tax cut to small businesses (defined solely by number of employees) equal to 50% of their wages paid out to non-owners or 50% of wages paid out to family members.
H.R. 436 - (no action) This bill repeals an excise tax on medical devices and lets HSA/flex account funds be spent on OTC drugs.

Halfway there!
 
2012-09-07 04:43:55 PM

Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

You're just rambling at this point.

No, you haven't got a response. Like I've said, Dems want to make this issue about class warfare.

How is any of this crap "Class Warfare"?

It's not class warfare? What with all those greedy Wall Street/Corporate talk?

So complaining about how they're taking advantage of the tax code in order to pay less taxes than me is "Class Warfare"?

This is about taxes now? Rich should pay more?

So I'm confused then. What did I say that has you biatching about "Class Warfare"?


I noticed you won't answer any questions except to try and divert to new questions. Went from Wall Street to taxes. This isn't about you. This is the Dems attack on Wall Street, Profits and then blame them. I started this conversation with another person when you jumped in.
 
2012-09-07 04:44:29 PM

skullkrusher: Pincy: Yes, it is. If more people had more money to spend then demand would be greater and the private sector would be creating more jobs. Trickle-down has created an economic environment which keeps this from happening.

explain


This is an overly simplified explanation but it should get you in the ballpark of understanding why trickle down does not work. Cutting taxes so that those at the top see the benefit does not benefit those who would buy things. If the poeple don't have money to buy, there is no demand. If there is no demand then business don't need to increase production. If they don't need to increase production they don't invest in capital which includes hiring workers. Instead those at the top sit on their money or invest overseas.

Supply side economics does not work, growth has be be demand driven.
 
2012-09-07 04:45:06 PM

skullkrusher: s/7314224/79226024#c79226024" target="_blank">WhyteRaven74: It would have some ripples, but if you're an American company producing things for American consumers, not really a worry unless you get all your materials from Spain and Greece.

I'm sorry but that is just way too nearsighted. You know who are huge holders of Spanish and Greek debt? Banks. You know what happens when counterparties default on the assets held by banks? 2007. What do banks do? They offer credit. Can you see how massive writedowns of sovereign debt would be a bad thing for the economy of the world? Both in terms of corporations and consumers? Since when are corporations limited to US shores in terms of customers, anyway?

WhyteRaven74: Iran isn't exactly getting jumpy over the strait of Hormuz....

if you were a company which relied heavily on oil or gas prices staying under control, would you bet several hundred million dollars on WhyteRaven74's nonchalance regarding Iran? I wouldn't.


I woildn't bet on Whyte having bathed on any given Saturday night, but I'm a cynic.
 
2012-09-07 04:45:07 PM

I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.


You frigging waste of DNA: the republicons in Congress failed to pass a very generous to small business (actually a previous republicon idea) jobs act because they wanted the country and our economy to fail. They are treasonist bastards and should be lined up on a wall the pasted with rotten fruit. Yes, something else is working here you idiot - the deliberate destruction of our economy by the republicons.
 
2012-09-07 04:45:52 PM

TheDumbBlonde: Corvus: Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.

So then the question "Are we doing better than we were 4 years ago?" is now not a valid question when the answer is yes?

The answer "yes" is a subjective one. For example, 4 years ago you had a massive hemorage, and the doctor said you'd be up and around by now. However, you are still in critical but stable condition. Are you better? Yes. Would you get a second opinion? Probably.


Look who doesn't know what "subjective" means!


/"better" is "better", I think you are looknig for "relative"
 
2012-09-07 04:45:55 PM

phreezen: This is the Dems attack on Wall Street, Profits and then blame them.


So all you got is hyperbole with nothing to back it up?
 
2012-09-07 04:46:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: phreezen: This is the Dems attack on Wall Street, Profits and then blame them.

So all you got is hyperbole with nothing to back it up?


More questions? Try answering one.
 
2012-09-07 04:46:56 PM

WhyteRaven74: Caterpillar which has in place a freeze on wage increases while reporting record profits, hire back people that were let go.


I have family working there and you are wrong. The wage freeze ended 2 years ago and a number of the people let go during the recession have been called back.
 
2012-09-07 04:47:42 PM

phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.

Because most people don't want to pit their whole retirement on how the stock market does.

Myself included.

Why not? You guys keep saying how great the market is and record profits and what not? You can't have it both ways. Sure there are risk, but those that take it gets the reward. Starting a business is a risk.

You're just rambling at this point.

No, you haven't got a response. Like I've said, Dems want to make this issue about class warfare.

How is any of this crap "Class Warfare"?

It's not class warfare? What with all those greedy Wall Street/Corporate talk?

So complaining about how they're taking advantage of the tax code in order to pay less taxes than me is "Class Warfare"?

This is about taxes now? Rich should pay more?

So I'm confused then. What did I say that has you biatching about "Class Warfare"?

I noticed you won't answer any questions except to try and divert to new questions. Went from Wall Street to taxes. This isn't about you. This is the Dems attack on Wall Street, Profits and then blame them. I started this conversation with another person when you jumped in.


What a class warrior might say:

Republican Ronald Reagan supported taxing capital gains as ordinary income - they are now taxed much less - and supported higher taxes on corporations. Defending his tax reform proposal in 1985, Reagan said:

We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it....

What we're trying to move against is institutionalized unfairness. We want to see that everyone pays their fair share, and no one gets a free ride. Our reasons? It's good for society when we all know that no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they're rich and powerful. But it's also good for society when everyone pays something, that everyone makes a contribution.


Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/10/07/7-Top-Republicans-Who -Taxed-the-Super-Rich.aspx#LgfipKcfKW7I7jTR.99
 
2012-09-07 04:47:45 PM

jst3p: This is an overly simplified explanation but it should get you in the ballpark of understanding why trickle down does not work. Cutting taxes so that those at the top see the benefit does not benefit those who would buy things. If the poeple don't have money to buy, there is no demand. If there is no demand then business don't need to increase production. If they don't need to increase production they don't invest in capital which includes hiring workers. Instead those at the top sit on their money or invest overseas.


Put another way - The reason restaurants are not hiring more waitresses isn't because their taxes are too high. It's because there are no farking customers eating there. You could cut their taxes to zero, without people eating there they aren't gonna hire.
 
2012-09-07 04:47:46 PM

MartinD-35: I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.

You frigging waste of DNA: the republicons in Congress failed to pass a very generous to small business (actually a previous republicon idea) jobs act because they wanted the country and our economy to fail. They are treasonist bastards and should be lined up on a wall the pasted with rotten fruit. Yes, something else is working here you idiot - the deliberate destruction of our economy by the republicons.


LOL. You just called out one of the brightest and most reasonable people on Fark.
 
2012-09-07 04:48:16 PM

WhyteRaven74: And in any case, whatever they do has little to do with what's to be done in the US.


Oh, bullshiat again. Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say when you get proven wrong time and time again, and won't even acknowledge it?
 
2012-09-07 04:48:41 PM

phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: This is the Dems attack on Wall Street, Profits and then blame them.

So all you got is hyperbole with nothing to back it up?

More questions? Try answering one.


Which one do you want me to answer first?
 
2012-09-07 04:49:00 PM

Saiga410: I have family working there and you are wrong.


Par for the course for that guy. He'll keep blithely posting on though
 
2012-09-07 04:49:55 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: funny how 0bama whined that we don't have job growth due to ATMs and automatic ticket machines at airports...

oh wait, were you serious?

isn't it easier to just outlaw technology and progress?



ZOMG Bloomberg Business Week is in the tank for Obama!!1!

www.businessweek.com

/Obama didn't suggest using his time machine to reverse progress as a solution
 
MFL
2012-09-07 04:51:30 PM
King Something And even then, not really, since their filibuster-proof majority included the Blue Dog Democrats from flyover country and Joe "I'm an 'independent' and totally not in the GOP's corner despite me running for their party's presidential nomination in 2008, oh and I want you to hamstring the health care reform bill or else I'm gonna side with the GOP and vote against cloture" Lieberman

waaaaawawawaaaaaa

So.....the greatest orator on earth who has a spine of steel, a heart of gold, and ice in his veins is making excuses about not having a filibuster proof majority?

A. Reagan got his entire agenda passed in his first term with only one majority in congress.
B. Clinton put his stamp on the republican agenda with the GOP holding both houses of congress and got to reap the benefits politically from their success.
C. Hell even W. at least got budgets passed and war funding with neither house in congress and a 30% approval rating after 2007 and 2008.

I've never seen a president and a party cry so much about not having a "true" filibuster proof majority in congress. No farking president ever gets this! (besides Carter who was almost as bad as Obama) What more does he farking want?

Obama can deliver one speech....the same speech.... better than anyone in the world. But that's as far as his talents take him. When the crowd is gone and the camera's are off, he's usually the second smallest person in the board room(if Jay Carney is present) during negotiations.

There is nobody in charge in that whitehouse. It's a clusterfark and congress knows it. The gridlock we see right now is nothing more than inmates running the asylum because the warden wears a dress.
 
2012-09-07 04:52:04 PM

shastacola:

What a class warrior might say:

Republican Ronald Reagan supported taxing capital gains as ordinary income - they are now taxed much less - and supported higher taxes on corporations. Defending his tax reform proposal in 1985, Reagan said:

We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it....

What we're trying to move against is institutionalized unfairn ...


This is why you won't get a fair tax. Peter Schiff talks to DNC goersLink
 
2012-09-07 04:52:31 PM

BigJake: Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say when you get proven wrong time and time again, and won't even acknowledge it?


So how would Greece defaulting on its debt affect a company in America that produces goods in American primarily for American consumers? Show your work.
 
2012-09-07 04:53:37 PM

TheDumbBlonde: Corvus: Swagulus: Hmmm...A lot more "B B But Bush!!!!"'s in this thread than normal...You guys are gettin lazy. Time to come up with some new talking points.

So then the question "Are we doing better than we were 4 years ago?" is now not a valid question when the answer is yes?

The answer "yes" is a subjective one. For example, 4 years ago you had a massive hemorage, and the doctor said you'd be up and around by now. However, you are still in critical but stable condition. Are you better? Yes. Would you get a second opinion? Probably.


Not when the second opinion is "have another hemorrhage".
 
2012-09-07 04:53:41 PM
Would you people please stop posting economic drivel in the middle of a pie thread?

Thanks!
 
2012-09-07 04:54:02 PM

Saiga410: The wage freeze ended 2 years ago


Interesting, hadn't heard about that, though plenty of outlets have mentioned the freeze over the last year. So be it, it's ended.
 
2012-09-07 04:54:08 PM

Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: This is the Dems attack on Wall Street, Profits and then blame them.

So all you got is hyperbole with nothing to back it up?

More questions? Try answering one.

Which one do you want me to answer first?


You can pick one. Don't matter. Taxes is fine.
 
2012-09-07 04:55:06 PM
Ok somebody help an old CPA with his math. (I know, you were told there be no math).

If 96,000 new jobs is a 0.2% drop in unemployment, that means the total workforce is only 48 million people.

96,000/0.2%=48 million

The real workforce is more like 140 million. 96,000/140 million = 0.07%, not 0.2%.

140 million x 0.2% = 280,000 new jobs, not 96,000.

So, we just stopped counting 184,000 unemployed people? (280-96=184)

That means that for every person who found a job, almost 2 people gave up and stopped looking? (184/96 = 1.92 ~ 2)

What am I missing?

/spare me the "youre an idiot" responses and show me your math. I showed you mine.
 
2012-09-07 04:55:56 PM

phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: This is the Dems attack on Wall Street, Profits and then blame them.

So all you got is hyperbole with nothing to back it up?

More questions? Try answering one.

Which one do you want me to answer first?

You can pick one. Don't matter. Taxes is fine.


The class warfare claim is pretty weak.

I don't demonize the rich for being rich. There are lots of rich people who play by the rules, I just demonize the rich who abuse the tax code to get an advantage over everyone else while simultaneous complaining that the tax code is STILL UNFAIR TOWARDS THEM!
 
2012-09-07 04:58:00 PM

MFL: I've never seen a president and a party cry so much about not having a "true" filibuster proof majority in congress. No farking president ever gets this! (besides Carter who was almost as bad as Obama) What more does he farking want?


Would have been nice to have had it for the full two years. Franken's election results were held up for months and then Kennedy was out of commission most of the time and not voting, so you know, they only really had that 'filibuster proof' thingy for about 2 months.
 
2012-09-07 04:58:02 PM

jst3p: This is an overly simplified explanation but it should get you in the ballpark of understanding why trickle down does not work.


I understand why trickle down doesn't work.

jst3p: Cutting taxes so that those at the top see the benefit does not benefit those who would buy things. If the poeple don't have money to buy, there is no demand. If there is no demand then business don't need to increase production. If they don't need to increase production they don't invest in capital which includes hiring workers. Instead those at the top sit on their money or invest overseas.

Supply side economics does not work, growth has be be demand driven.


Sure. Cutting taxes on the wealthiest does not lead to growth because growth comes when there is demand. That doesn't explain why trickle down is responsible for the current employment situation. It'd be one thing if the consumption classes were bearing a historically high tax burden to benefit the wealthier "job creators" but they're not. We're putting the "cost" of those wealthier tax cuts on our tab.
 
2012-09-07 04:58:13 PM
This is devastating news for a failed President who proved in his speech last night that he is exhausted and out of ideas. Other than "more of the same," Obama had nothing to offer, and this morning was a startling reminder that "more of the same" is a recipe for four more years of failure.

If things are so rosy, WHERE ARE THE JOBS??????
 
2012-09-07 04:58:16 PM

MFL:

There is nobody in charge in that whitehouse.


That do nothing president turned our country socialist and athiest with his healthcare reform and Islam he learned from that Jeremy Wright church!!!!
 
2012-09-07 04:58:37 PM

WhyteRaven74: So how would Greece defaulting on its debt affect a company in America that produces goods in American primarily for American consumers? Show your work.


A default in Greece is going to leave a whole lot of both European and American investors holding the bag even more than they already are if they hold any of their sovereign debt. Those same investors, and others, are likely to be shafted even more by the follow-on effects from such a default that occur in Italy and Spain. If either of those countries find themselves unable to borrow, the Euro stands a good chance of collapsing. Even if that doesn't happen, imports are extremely likely to slow further throughout the Eurozone, hurting a lot of companies such as Caterpillar and Boeing, farmers here in Washington, and about a million others. American companies and farmers that buy from American producers that sell primarily to Americans.

Do you think the fallout from our mortgage crisis didn't affect the European economy? Are you really this dense or is it just an act?
 
2012-09-07 05:00:49 PM

tony41454: This is devastating news for a failed President who proved in his speech last night that he is exhausted and out of ideas. Other than "more of the same," Obama had nothing to offer, and this morning was a startling reminder that "more of the same" is a recipe for four more years of failure.

If things are so rosy, WHERE ARE THE JOBS??????


Unlike you, I have a job.
 
2012-09-07 05:08:12 PM

skullkrusher: Cutting taxes on the wealthiest does not lead to growth because growth comes when there is demand.


Circular logic. You can do better than that, surely.

Cut to the chase, skull. Economic growth begins somewherein the supply/demand process: where do you think it happens?
 
2012-09-07 05:08:24 PM

sprawl15: H. Res. 72 - (no action) This bill tells major departments to basically audit themselves and do a book report on it. There is no action taken by anyone involved beyond a paperwork drill.
H.R. 872 - (no action) This bill removes authority by both the state and the EPA to prevent people from spraying pesticides into navigable waters.
H.R. 910 - (no action) This bill eliminates the ability of the EPA to control greenhouse gasses for purposes of mitigating climate change.
H.J. Res. 37 - (voted down by Senate) This bill eliminates Net Neutrality
H.R. 2018 - (no action) This bill effectively transfers all control of water pollution to the states.
H.R. 1315 - (no action) This bill allows the two Dodd-Frank regulatory agencies to overrule eachother when it comes to striking down regulations. It also creates piles of paperwork when creating new regulations. It also vaporizes the FHA home lone program.
H.R. 2587 - (no action) This bill prevents the NLRB from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment for any reason.
H.R. 2401 - (no action) This bill guts the Clean Air Act, while adding roadblocks to most EPA programs.
H.R. 2681 - (no action) This bill exempts the cement industry from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and from trash incineration hazardous materials standards
H.R. 2250 - (no action) This bill eliminates a swath of hazardous material standards and hamstrings potential future replacement of these regulations
H.R. 2273 - (no action) This bill allows states to let coal power plants dump their waste in landfills
H.R. 3094 - (no action) This bill lets the NLRB determine the unit allowed to collectively bargain, rather than organization by company, shop, plant, etc.
H.R. 3010 - (no action) This bill requires a huge amount of paperwork drills to be run before executive branch rules changes can be enacted
H.R. 527 - (no action) This bill expands the RFA to tribal organizations.
H.R. 10 - (no action) This bill requires ...


Thank you for this, I'm going to save for when I get this "talking point" on Facebook.
 
2012-09-07 05:22:22 PM

WhyteRaven74: BigJake: Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say when you get proven wrong time and time again, and won't even acknowledge it?

So how would Greece defaulting on its debt affect a company in America that produces goods in American primarily for American consumers? Show your work.


Because companies in the US making thing for the US market don't need to borrow, and therefore never become customers competing for services the global financial process (which includes sovereign debt)?
 
2012-09-07 05:34:04 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Sybarite: ignatius_crumbcake: I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.

About 130k new workers enter the job market every month. Guess they should have just borrowed money from their parents.


Your point is correct but the number is a little outdated. The CBO currently projects a labor growth of 0.7% annually for the next several years, so if we look at the pre-recession level of employment - 140 million - that's 980,000 jobs/year or about 82,500/month. That number would be a bit higher (90,000/month) if you use BLS estimates on the growth of non-institutionalized population over age 16 over the next 12 months. Either way, somewhere south of 100K.

What you said does not contradict what he said.



I wasn't trying to. Just pointing out that population growth has slowed somewhat in this country and many articles that come out on the subject are still using numbers in the 125K to 150K range which are a few years out of date.
 
2012-09-07 05:35:14 PM

skullkrusher: jst3p: This is an overly simplified explanation but it should get you in the ballpark of understanding why trickle down does not work.

I understand why trickle down doesn't work.

jst3p: Cutting taxes so that those at the top see the benefit does not benefit those who would buy things. If the poeple don't have money to buy, there is no demand. If there is no demand then business don't need to increase production. If they don't need to increase production they don't invest in capital which includes hiring workers. Instead those at the top sit on their money or invest overseas.

Supply side economics does not work, growth has be be demand driven.

Sure. Cutting taxes on the wealthiest does not lead to growth because growth comes when there is demand. That doesn't explain why trickle down is responsible for the current employment situation. It'd be one thing if the consumption classes were bearing a historically high tax burden to benefit the wealthier "job creators" but they're not. We're putting the "cost" of those wealthier tax cuts on our tab.


If you are looking for a reason, one is that trickle down was never intended to work. It was intended to provoke a crisis that could be used as an excuse to cut New Deal type programs.

""The plan was to have a strategic deficit that would give you an argument for cutting back the programs that weren't desired. It got out of hand" -- Dave Stockman

Fark Link

Even Fredrich Von Hayek knew the score:


A 1985 interview with von Hayek in the March 25, 1985 issue of Profil 13, the Austrian journal, was just as revealing. Von Hayek sat for the interview while wearing a set of cuff links Reagan had presented him as a gift. "I really believe Reagan is fundamentally a decent and honest man," von Hayek told his interviewer. "His politics? When the government of the United States borrows a large part of the savings of the world, the consequence is that capital must become scarce and expensive in the whole world. That's a problem." And in reference to Stockman, von Hayek said: "You see, one of Reagan's advisers told me why the president has permitted that to happen, which makes the matter partly excusable: Reagan thinks it is impossible to persuade Congress that expenditures must be reduced unless one creates deficits so large that absolutely everyone becomes convinced that no more money can be spent." Thus, he went on, it was up to Reagan to "persuade Congress of the necessity of spending reductions by means of an immense deficit. Unfortunately, he has not succeeded!!!" Those three exclamation points, unusually effusive for an economist, are in the original.


So maybe we should just go with the Stockholm Syndrome solution?
 
2012-09-07 05:41:43 PM

skullkrusher: Pincy: Yes, it is. If more people had more money to spend then demand would be greater and the private sector would be creating more jobs. Trickle-down has created an economic environment which keeps this from happening.

explain


Many ways. It's sometimes states that "investment capital" creates jobs. Little thought is given to this statement. Yes, high-risk investments in entrepreneurial start-ups certainly helps create jobs, but even then, there has to be a demand for the start-up's product.

But not all investment is for new innovative businesses. Some is for boring old low-risk AAA investment. This money largely comes from the wealthy who have more money than they can spend. Is this investment money bad? No, definitely not. Can it be bad?

The giant global pool of money

That giant pool of money would have been substantially smaller if taxes were higher on the wealthy.
If that giant pool of money was smaller, the demand for mortgaged backed securities would have been smaller.
If demand for mortgaged backed securities was smaller, mortgage brokers would have had a harder time selling sub-prime loans.
If mortgage brokers had a harder time selling sub-prime loans, they would have issued less of them.
If mortgage brokers issued less sub-prime loans, less mortgaged backed securities would have become unprofitable.
If less mortgaged backed securities were unprofitable, fewer investment banks would have lost their shirt.

I think you see were this is going...
 
2012-09-07 05:43:48 PM

phreezen: I started this conversation with another person when you jumped in.


He does that a lot.
You need to get used to it and laugh at it the way everyone else does.
 
2012-09-07 05:44:13 PM

Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: Mrtraveler01: phreezen: This is the Dems attack on Wall Street, Profits and then blame them.

So all you got is hyperbole with nothing to back it up?

More questions? Try answering one.

Which one do you want me to answer first?

You can pick one. Don't matter. Taxes is fine.

The class warfare claim is pretty weak.

I don't demonize the rich for being rich. There are lots of rich people who play by the rules, I just demonize the rich who abuse the tax code to get an advantage over everyone else while simultaneous complaining that the tax code is STILL UNFAIR TOWARDS THEM!


Huh? Does it make sense to you that you agreed that lots of rich people are playing by the rules but are complaining about those who aren't. You want to complain but rich people can't. Your solution to those who don't play by the rule is what? Raise taxes on the rich?
 
2012-09-07 05:44:18 PM

sprawl15: Halfway there!


Continued...

H.R. 8 - (no action) This bill extends the Bush Tax Cuts for another year. This specifically exempts itself from PAYGO. It also starts the restructuring of the tax code into two brackets (10% and less than 25%), reducing the corporate tax to less than 25%, repealing the AMT, and 'reforming' foreign taxation.
H.R. 6169 - (no action) This bill implements the above restructuring.
H.R. 1904 - (no action) This bill trades protected Federal land to Resolution Copper Mining, LLC in exchange for non-Federal land that will become protected (including imposition of eminent domain on local towns).
H.R. 4402 - (no action) This bill extends the definition of 'infrastructure project' to include mineral mines.
H.R. 3012 - (no action) This bill increases the amount of available high-skill immigrant visas and immigrant student visas.
H.R. 1230 - (no action) This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct three specific lease sales of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Virginia.
H.R. 1229 - (no action) This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to end the moratorium on drilling and severely limits the ability of these company's employees to sue for failure to act in accordance with the law or company policy.
H.R. 1231 - (no action) This bill ends the drilling moratorium.
H.R. 2021 - (no action) This bill exempts Outer Continental Shelf oil/gas companies from the Clean Air Act.
H.R. 1938 - (no action) This bill forces the Keystone XL pipeline to be approved.
H.R. 2842 - (no action) This bill lets the Secretary of the Interior contract hydroelectric facilities that produce 1.5 megawatts of power or less.
H.R. 2578 - (no action) This bill reduces the protected length of the Lower Merced River in California. It also throws more money at Hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System in Utah, sells tribal land to corporations, expands the Mission Walk in San Antonio by 137 acres, and about a dozen more miscellaneous similar environmental changes.
H.R. 4480 - (no action) This bill pushes to expand deepwater oil and natural gas drilling.

Left out: all the ones that were signed by Obama.
 
2012-09-07 05:46:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: phreezen: I started this conversation with another person when you jumped in.

He does that a lot.
You need to get used to it and laugh at it the way everyone else does.


OK.
 
2012-09-07 05:46:25 PM
the democrats want everyone to be in the middle class. all in the same box. a box where they can keep you where they put you. a concrete box like a prison. we'll all be in there like children in a grade school class, along with the misfits and losers.

how about no? how about letting us all do our best to rise to our own station?
 
2012-09-07 05:47:33 PM
Is there a problem with Fark. Couldn't post for awhile
 
2012-09-07 05:52:32 PM

sprawl15: sprawl15: Halfway there!

Continued...

H.R. 8 - (no action) This bill extends the Bush Tax Cuts for another year. This specifically exempts itself from PAYGO. It also starts the restructuring of the tax code into two brackets (10% and less than 25%), reducing the corporate tax to less than 25%, repealing the AMT, and 'reforming' foreign taxation.
H.R. 6169 - (no action) This bill implements the above restructuring.
H.R. 1904 - (no action) This bill trades protected Federal land to Resolution Copper Mining, LLC in exchange for non-Federal land that will become protected (including imposition of eminent domain on local towns).
H.R. 4402 - (no action) This bill extends the definition of 'infrastructure project' to include mineral mines.
H.R. 3012 - (no action) This bill increases the amount of available high-skill immigrant visas and immigrant student visas.
H.R. 1230 - (no action) This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct three specific lease sales of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Virginia.
H.R. 1229 - (no action) This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to end the moratorium on drilling and severely limits the ability of these company's employees to sue for failure to act in accordance with the law or company policy.
H.R. 1231 - (no action) This bill ends the drilling moratorium.
H.R. 2021 - (no action) This bill exempts Outer Continental Shelf oil/gas companies from the Clean Air Act.
H.R. 1938 - (no action) This bill forces the Keystone XL pipeline to be approved.
H.R. 2842 - (no action) This bill lets the Secretary of the Interior contract hydroelectric facilities that produce 1.5 megawatts of power or less.
H.R. 2578 - (no action) This bill reduces the protected length of the Lower Merced River in California. It also throws more money at Hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System in Utah, sells tribal land to corporations, expands the Mission Walk in San Antonio by 137 acres, and about a dozen more misc ...


By the way, next time anyone throws this BS idea out there, there's plenty of places online that already did the work for you. Link them to this to save up some time.
 
2012-09-07 05:52:53 PM

colon_pow: the democrats want everyone to be in the middle class. all in the same box. a box where they can keep you where they put you. a concrete box like a prison. we'll all be in there like children in a grade school class, along with the misfits and losers.

how about no? how about letting us all do our best to rise to our own station?


So you can crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women?
 
2012-09-07 05:54:15 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: colon_pow: the democrats want everyone to be in the middle class. all in the same box. a box where they can keep you where they put you. a concrete box like a prison. we'll all be in there like children in a grade school class, along with the misfits and losers.

how about no? how about letting us all do our best to rise to our own station?

So you can crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women?


so i can continue doing that, yes.
 
2012-09-07 05:55:00 PM

quiotu: By the way, next time anyone throws this BS idea out there, there's plenty of places online that already did the work for you. Link them to this to save up some time.


I like digging around in legislation.

As a randomly chosen example (seriously, this is the first one I picked) C&L only lists HR 2681 as reducing emissions standards from cement manufacturing, when it also includes emission standards on incineration of refuse from cement manufacturers.
 
2012-09-07 06:00:06 PM

impaler: skullkrusher: Pincy: Yes, it is. If more people had more money to spend then demand would be greater and the private sector would be creating more jobs. Trickle-down has created an economic environment which keeps this from happening.

explain

Many ways. It's sometimes states that "investment capital" creates jobs. Little thought is given to this statement. Yes, high-risk investments in entrepreneurial start-ups certainly helps create jobs, but even then, there has to be a demand for the start-up's product.

But not all investment is for new innovative businesses. Some is for boring old low-risk AAA investment. This money largely comes from the wealthy who have more money than they can spend. Is this investment money bad? No, definitely not. Can it be bad?

The giant global pool of money

That giant pool of money would have been substantially smaller if taxes were higher on the wealthy.
If that giant pool of money was smaller, the demand for mortgaged backed securities would have been smaller.
If demand for mortgaged backed securities was smaller, mortgage brokers would have had a harder time selling sub-prime loans.
If mortgage brokers had a harder time selling sub-prime loans, they would have issued less of them.
If mortgage brokers issued less sub-prime loans, less mortgaged backed securities would have become unprofitable.
If less mortgaged backed securities were unprofitable, fewer investment banks would have lost their shirt.

I think you see were this is going...


Trickle-down has permeated US economic policy for over 30 years. It just now is becoming a problem where it impacts demand? I know there are policy lags but that's a bit much. It's an interesting scenario you propose but they don't practice trickle down all over the world and many international banks also lost their shirts by being too heavily leveraged to MBSs and the derivatives which shat the bed due to the toxicity of the MBSs. I think it is overly simplistic to blame the employment situation on rich people having too much money. The issue with employment stems from a lack of stability in global markets. I think we're starting to turn the corner on that and once we see a few Qs of no catastrophe and steadily increasing good news, businesses will start hiring again.
 
2012-09-07 06:00:30 PM
www.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-09-07 06:09:39 PM

phreezen: Is there a problem with Fark. Couldn't post for awhile


BAN HAMMER
 
2012-09-07 06:10:39 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


There it is! fark Romney.

There are only 2 kinds of republicans: Rich one and stupid ones. No one on here has wealth. So....
 
2012-09-07 06:11:41 PM

TheDumbBlonde: gameshowhost: TheDumbBlonde: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

 
Every time a Farker posts an Obama Job Creation graphic some gets a job,
 
Every time you make an assertion, a mongoloid is born.
 
Really?
 
Not quite racist but definitely racist approved.
 
2012-09-07 06:11:43 PM
Also - Drew is a republican douchebag
 
2012-09-07 06:17:33 PM

I_C_Weener: TheDumbBlonde: gameshowhost: TheDumbBlonde: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]
 
Every time a Farker posts an Obama Job Creation graphic some gets a job,
 
Every time you make an assertion, a mongoloid is born.
 
Really?
 
Not quite racist but definitely racist approved.


Trisomy G-21 is a race?

/do the racists call them 'Tri.g' for short?
 
2012-09-07 06:18:04 PM

MartinD-35: I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

 
 
Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.
 
You frigging waste of DNA: the republicons in Congress failed to pass a very generous to small business (actually a previous republicon idea) jobs act because they wanted the country and our economy to fail. They are treasonist bastards and should be lined up on a wall the pasted with rotten fruit. Yes, something else is working here you idiot - the deliberate destruction of our economy by the republicons.
 
I can't imagine why it might be hard to reach across the aisle when this type of calm reasoned exchange can take place.
 
2012-09-07 06:19:03 PM

skullkrusher: I think it is overly simplistic to blame the employment situation on rich people having too much money.


They're getting more and more money, and they're not spending it. If they spent it, there wouldn't be an employment situation.
 
2012-09-07 06:20:17 PM

colon_pow: the democrats want everyone to be in the middle class. all in the same box. a box where they can keep you where they put you. a concrete box like a prison. we'll all be in there like children in a grade school class, along with the misfits and losers.

how about no? how about letting us all do our best to rise to our own station?


You will get in your middle class box and like it otherwise it is the re-training camps for you and you don't like that we have some nice death panels that would like to meet you. Get in line, you've already been reported.
 
2012-09-07 06:25:02 PM

impaler: skullkrusher: I think it is overly simplistic to blame the employment situation on rich people having too much money.

They're getting more and more money, and they're not spending it. If they spent it, there wouldn't be an employment situation.


Which would be an issue if the consumption classes were paying a higher rate than they have historically. They're not, they're paying a lower rate too. I don't
think the employment issue has much of anything to do with our current tax policy
 
2012-09-07 06:26:34 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: I_C_Weener: TheDumbBlonde: gameshowhost: TheDumbBlonde: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]
 
Every time a Farker posts an Obama Job Creation graphic some gets a job,
 
Every time you make an assertion, a mongoloid is born.
 
Really?
 
Not quite racist but definitely racist approved.

Trisomy G-21 is a race?

/do the racists call them 'Tri.g' for short?


You sound caucasoid
 
2012-09-07 06:32:41 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-07 06:43:22 PM

WhyteRaven74: The people running things are different than they used to be. The people who ran things in the past thought of the larger economic consequences of their decisions and operated on the assumption that if it's good for the economy it's good for business, likewise what's good for business is only that which is good for the economy.


Ha ha! Good one. That's funny.
 
2012-09-07 06:49:27 PM

phreezen: Fight back from what, why not privatize social security and join the market.


You might want to ask those who retired in 2008 and lost their investments what they think of that idea. Social Security is a safety net program.

phreezen: This is why you won't get a fair tax.


Because it's a completely stupid idea?
 
2012-09-07 06:52:11 PM

skullkrusher: I don't think the employment issue has much of anything to do with our current tax policy



At least we agree that more tax cuts won't create jobs.
 
2012-09-07 06:58:31 PM

I_C_Weener: I can't imagine why it might be hard to reach across the aisle when this type of calm reasoned exchange can take place.


I got 98% of what I wanted.

Indeed.
 
2012-09-07 07:01:54 PM

skullkrusher: I don't
think the employment issue has much of anything to do with our current tax policy


Just like the inability of the skinny guy being able to breath has nothing to do with the rather large woman on top of him.

image.free.in.th

Skinny Guy = Business
Fat Woman = Government
 
2012-09-07 07:09:39 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: I_C_Weener: TheDumbBlonde: gameshowhost: TheDumbBlonde: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]
 
Every time a Farker posts an Obama Job Creation graphic some gets a job,
 
Every time you make an assertion, a mongoloid is born.
 
Really?
 
Not quite racist but definitely racist approved.

 
Trisomy G-21 is a race?
 
/do the racists call them 'Tri.g' for short?
Whoops!  Who is the retard now?  
 
Still pretty offensive.
 
2012-09-07 07:11:18 PM
Obama is the GOP Messiah ...

If by "Messiah" you mean some [educated black man] to pin all their sins on and crucify.

Obama didn't get us into this mess, we decided in the 1980s that false prosperity based debt was good enough. Wages have been stagnant for 20 years for everyone but CEOs and other executives.
 
2012-09-07 07:13:10 PM
Shorter

MFL: You don't need a filibuster-proof majority in Congress to get things done. You just need to be one of the following:

* A Republican president
* A Democratic president who does everything the Republicans want

 
2012-09-07 07:13:47 PM

mrshowrules: colon_pow: the democrats want everyone to be in the middle class. all in the same box. a box where they can keep you where they put you. a concrete box like a prison. we'll all be in there like children in a grade school class, along with the misfits and losers.

how about no? how about letting us all do our best to rise to our own station?

You will get in your middle class box and like it otherwise it is the re-training camps for you and you don't like that we have some nice death panels that would like to meet you. Get in line, you've already been reported.


it's quittin' time. how about i report to my nearest brew pub?
 
2012-09-07 07:17:23 PM

nmemkha: Obama didn't get us into this mess


True. Bue he isn't capable of getting us out of it either. Screw the hope, it's just time for change again.
 
2012-09-07 07:22:50 PM

skullkrusher: Trisomy G-21 is a race?

/do the racists call them 'Tri.g' for short?

You sound caucasoid


i.imgur.com

Are we not Men?
 
2012-09-07 07:25:02 PM

I_C_Weener: Whoops! Who is the retard now?


Never go full retard.
 
2012-09-07 07:26:10 PM

colon_pow: mrshowrules: colon_pow: the democrats want everyone to be in the middle class. all in the same box. a box where they can keep you where they put you. a concrete box like a prison. we'll all be in there like children in a grade school class, along with the misfits and losers.

how about no? how about letting us all do our best to rise to our own station?

You will get in your middle class box and like it otherwise it is the re-training camps for you and you don't like that we have some nice death panels that would like to meet you. Get in line, you've already been reported.

it's quittin' time. how about i report to my nearest brew pub?


Fine but don't talk politics at the bar. It is inappropriate for starters but based on your arguments the other boys will just tease you.
 
2012-09-07 07:30:14 PM

Elandriel: I_C_Weener: Exactly.  Without decent growth, the job creation cannot keep up with new workers joining the job market.  That is the biggest issue.  So, saying he created some jobs over the past few years that hasn't kept up with the predictible trend of new workers....is like saying his record is "less bad than if he did nothing".  "Obama...not as bad as it could have been."  "We have stopped sinking like a rock.  Now we are only sinking like a waterlogged dead body."

Sure would be great if he had anything resembling agreeable participation from his counterparts across the aisle, but when you are met with steadfast refusal to even engage in civil discourse let alone actual measurable and progressive solutions, then you're not going to be particularly buoyant. I'm not pinning this on on a president who at least has presented options. This ball is squarely with the House of Representatives.

Pass a bill that isn't obviously partisan and stacked against any reasonable expectation of passing, enough of this horseshiat all-or-nothing brinksmanship, enough of the petty 100% of what we want and 0% of what anyone else wants nonsense. This country isn't the United States of Republicanism. The other ~50% of the nation needs to be met with their requests as well and the abject failure to even address that reality is what is really sinking employment.


Just amazing how liberals put no blame on Obama even with the Woodward excerpts. When even congressional democrats are commenting on Obama's lack of communication... Snowe who liberals were courting to pass bills even commented she hadn't heard from Obama in 2 years.

Take the Damon blinders off. It makes you look silly.
 
2012-09-07 07:31:17 PM

qorkfiend: Agneska: Obamanomics don't work. But don't worry, he'll shower you with food stamps as you stand on the unemployment line.

I find this highly amusing, considering all of the contradictory pieces of evidence in this very thread.


2nd slowest recovery in history is proof it works?
 
2012-09-07 07:32:41 PM

Pincy: TIKIMAN87: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Bush still created 5 times more jobs than were lost in the last months of his presidency.

That graph is misleading.

So why didn't he speak at the RNC last week?


Why didn't Carter speak at the dnc?
 
2012-09-07 07:43:06 PM

MyRandomName: Pincy: TIKIMAN87: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Bush still created 5 times more jobs than were lost in the last months of his presidency.

That graph is misleading.

So why didn't he speak at the RNC last week?

Why didn't Carter speak at the dnc?


he did. First day.
 
2012-09-07 07:47:53 PM

Pincy: coeyagi: Are you better off than you were 4 Years Ago?

Ya, I don't get why they keep asking this question? I think the majority of people and the economy as a whole is better off than the economic free fall we were in when Bush handed over the economy. I guess the Republicans are betting on the old adage that if you keep telling people they are worse off they will eventually begin to believe it.


It's because they're channeling the Ghost of Ronald Reagan. That was HIS line, and they're unable to think of a better one even a quarter-century later.
 
2012-09-07 08:03:23 PM

mrshowrules: MyRandomName: Pincy: TIKIMAN87: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Bush still created 5 times more jobs than were lost in the last months of his presidency.

That graph is misleading.

So why didn't he speak at the RNC last week?

Why didn't Carter speak at the dnc?

he did. First day.


www.muzakblog.com
 
2012-09-07 08:09:25 PM

MyRandomName: Why didn't Carter speak at the dnc?


Because he did?

Link
 
2012-09-07 08:16:45 PM

metztli: We have the money - we just spend it on destruction instead of creation. We have good people, smart people, people eager to work, so let's put them to work.

Or we could just give millionaires more tax cuts and spend all our money killing brown people, I guess.


Your newsletter, subscribe to it, I would like.
 
2012-09-07 08:18:41 PM

impaler: MyRandomName: Why didn't Carter speak at the dnc?

Because he did?

Link


Actually, if you go back and listen to Carters 1980 acceptance speech, it sounds very much like the one Obama gave last night. So, in a sense he did speak, aside from that tape BS...

On a side note, I found it laughable when Clinton (in the tape) wondered if he would have had the courage to pull the trigger on Bin Laden. Well, history tells us he wouldn't have because he did have two chances at him and passed. Thanks Billy Jeff for that reminder.
 
2012-09-07 08:24:10 PM

Brick-House: impaler: MyRandomName: Why didn't Carter speak at the dnc?

Because he did?

Link

Actually, if you go back and listen to Carters 1980 acceptance speech, it sounds very much like the one Obama gave last night. So, in a sense he did speak, aside from that tape BS...

On a side note, I found it laughable when Clinton (in the tape) wondered if he would have had the courage to pull the trigger on Bin Laden. Well, history tells us he wouldn't have because he did have two chances at him and passed. Thanks Billy Jeff for that reminder.


Billy boy took his shot. Carter took his (Iran hostages). They both missed. Your man Dubya choked at Tora Bora. Obama didnt.
 
2012-09-07 08:33:15 PM
I agree with you about Dubya choking at Tora Bora. I so so kick him in the nuts over that. But what shot did Clinton take? I remember Sudan offering up Bin Laden and clinton saying no because he wasn't sure what to do with him and then I remember he know where he was, but we didn't take a shot because some Saudi secon cousin was visiting him and we were worried about pissing off the Saudis. And Piss on them. So what shot did he take and miss?
 
2012-09-07 08:35:20 PM

impaler: Because he did?

Link


That was awesome. "We don't need to go back to the failed policies of the past! Now here's Jimmy Carter"
 
2012-09-07 10:54:08 PM

Brick-House: impaler: MyRandomName: Why didn't Carter speak at the dnc?

Because he did?

Link

Actually, if you go back and listen to Carters 1980 acceptance speech, it sounds very much like the one Obama gave last night. So, in a sense he did speak, aside from that tape BS...

On a side note, I found it laughable when Clinton (in the tape) wondered if he would have had the courage to pull the trigger on Bin Laden. Well, history tells us he wouldn't have because he did have two chances at him and passed. Thanks Billy Jeff for that reminder.


Gee, I wonder who was supposed to be in that tent he took a shot at that resulted in accusations of 'wag the dog!'

/he took a shot. Missed. Predator drones were unarmed in those days, so there was a timelag while a tomahawk was sent in.

/or are you suggesting the pre-crime thing where one is supposed to get Bin Laden before he did something against the US
 
2012-09-07 11:03:52 PM
Why didnt the RNC invite Bush to speak at their convention?

/ Anyone???
 
2012-09-07 11:09:59 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Uh... The blue bars add up to a negative blue bar....... Win!?
 
2012-09-07 11:13:36 PM

tinyarena: [img11.imageshack.us image 371x454]
While people lost their homes.
While families fell apart.
While businesses died.

While we begged for help from our "leaders."

Never forget, and never forgive.

/VOTE


While Barry passed the biggest tax increase in history.

//exactly
 
2012-09-07 11:42:50 PM
I've been going by what I've been seeing.

The economy has been weakened so much by inflation that I'm pretty sure I'm seeing an increase in traffic when the dollar regains some value. The added value allows people to hire and others to afford to work to make a living.

As commodities and stock prices pulled back traffic increased. Now that the trend has reversed I expect we will once again be losing jobs.

People still seem to be falling for the things are great when the stock market moves up mantra. Have they ever told you that the stock market went up today because the value of the dollar went down?

Maybe if you can see it with your eyes. Take a look at the to following charts. When they double the money supply it then takes twice as many of something that now has half as much value. Even though you got twice as many of something with the same value they trick you into paying capital gains taxes on false profits. They cut themselves in on your stuff.


photos.imageevent.comClick to embiggen



photos.imageevent.comClick to embiggen


In order to easily see the increase is proportional, pretend the Dow Jones Industrial chart is an average of one hundred stocks and divide by one hundred by knocking off two zeros. 

I'm thinking the economy is stretched just that tight.
 
2012-09-07 11:57:32 PM

StokeyBob: Maybe if you can see it with your eyes. Take a look at the to following charts. When they double the money supply it then takes twice as many of something that now has half as much value. Even though you got twice as many of something with the same value they trick you into paying capital gains taxes on false profits. They cut themselves in on your stuff.


You mean those two charts, one of which covers 1665 to 2013 (estimated), and another 1890 to 2010? Those two charts? Two hockey sticks, one with a 348 year base, the other 120 years, with 'knees' at totally different years?

Compare them? Really? 

Can we do apples and oranges next?
 
2012-09-08 12:19:52 AM
is that really a price level chart going back to the 17th century because holy lol
 
2012-09-08 12:25:53 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: StokeyBob: Maybe if you can see it with your eyes. Take a look at the to following charts. When they double the money supply it then takes twice as many of something that now has half as much value. Even though you got twice as many of something with the same value they trick you into paying capital gains taxes on false profits. They cut themselves in on your stuff.

You mean those two charts, one of which covers 1665 to 2013 (estimated), and another 1890 to 2010? Those two charts? Two hockey sticks, one with a 348 year base, the other 120 years, with 'knees' at totally different years?

Compare them? Really? 

Can we do apples and oranges next?


Sorry your not seeing what some of us older people lived through. The knees really took off back in the sixties. They had fired up the fake money presses for the latest wars against mankind then. When people started saying, "Hey" they went totally off of any dollar standard around 71. It is kind of like they do things now. They do what they want and later come around on legality or admission.

Actually instead of apples and oranges maybe we get back on pie? I'm not sure what the best pie is but right now I'm thinking apple pie and ice cream might be nice. I am pretty sure about the best fiat currency though. I'm thinking this is the only one that increases in value the more it is reproduced.


photos.imageevent.comClick to embiggen
 
2012-09-08 12:39:23 AM

StokeyBob: People still seem to be falling for the things are great when the stock market moves up mantra.


That's because we've been force fed the trickle-down supply-side bullshiat for the past few decades that if the rich do better we all do better.
 
2012-09-08 12:50:40 AM

StokeyBob: I've been going by what I've been seeing.

The economy has been weakened so much by inflation that I'm pretty sure I'm seeing an increase in traffic when the dollar regains some value. The added value allows people to hire and others to afford to work to make a living.

As commodities and stock prices pulled back traffic increased. Now that the trend has reversed I expect we will once again be losing jobs.

People still seem to be falling for the things are great when the stock market moves up mantra. Have they ever told you that the stock market went up today because the value of the dollar went down?

Maybe if you can see it with your eyes. Take a look at the to following charts. When they double the money supply it then takes twice as many of something that now has half as much value. Even though you got twice as many of something with the same value they trick you into paying capital gains taxes on false profits. They cut themselves in on your stuff.


[photos.imageevent.com image 130x155]Click to embiggen


[photos.imageevent.com image 130x155]Click to embiggen


In order to easily see the increase is proportional, pretend the Dow Jones Industrial chart is an average of one hundred stocks and divide by one hundred by knocking off two zeros. 

I'm thinking the economy is stretched just that tight.


Literal hyperbole!
 
2012-09-08 01:48:02 AM

Heraclitus: Why didnt the RNC invite Bush to speak at their convention?

/ Anyone???


nice try libs but he's a RINO
 
2012-09-08 01:59:31 AM

falcon176: Heraclitus: Why didnt the RNC invite Bush to speak at their convention?

/ Anyone???

nice try libs but he's a RINO


Ya, but so is Reagan and they keep digging up his corpse.
 
2012-09-08 04:17:32 AM

theknuckler_33: SlothB77: There are 243,566,000 Americans at least 16 years old; and not in the military, prison, mental hospital or a nursing home.

Of those, 88,921,000 are not working nor have looked for a job in the past four weeks. In other words, 37% of people capable of working don't even attempt to get a job. Another 12,544,000 are looking for work, but remain unemployed, which is 5% of the pool of people capable of working.

Of the pool of people capable of working, only 58% of them are actually working - 142,101,000 people.

Assuming a US population of 315,000,000 people, that is only 45% of the total population of the USA that works.

Obama's America

So, you excluded the under 16 year olds when you wanted the % number to be high and then re-included them wen you wanted the % number to be low? That is farking AWESOME!!!

/let's not even talk about old people


PLUS, the people who are not working are just shiftless slackers. why do we care about those losers in the first place??
:D
 
2012-09-08 07:36:36 AM

James!: I keep hearing the sky is falling, but I've had 3 recruiters call me in the last week.


Typical white person response, while half of blacks males can't get a job.

How many of these new jobs are in fast food and janitorial? About 75%, maybe more.
 
2012-09-08 07:38:21 AM

mrshowrules: MyRandomName: Pincy: TIKIMAN87: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]

Bush still created 5 times more jobs than were lost in the last months of his presidency.

That graph is misleading.

So why didn't he speak at the RNC last week?

Why didn't Carter speak at the dnc?

he did. First day.


And was channeled in the last speech of the last day.
 
2012-09-08 08:02:55 AM

TheDumbBlonde: MartinD-35: I_C_Weener: ignatius_crumbcake: [img809.imageshack.us image 564x352]


Just out of curiosity...why is unemployement still over 8% then?  Maybe job creation isn't keeping up with job losses...or something else is at work here....  hmmm.

You frigging waste of DNA: the republicons in Congress failed to pass a very generous to small business (actually a previous republicon idea) jobs act because they wanted the country and our economy to fail. They are treasonist bastards and should be lined up on a wall the pasted with rotten fruit. Yes, something else is working here you idiot - the deliberate destruction of our economy by the republicons.

LOL. You just called out one of the brightest and most reasonable people on Fark.


Well, perhaps I was thinking he was I.C. Weener, or some other iteration of Buster Hyman or whatever, if this is a different alt (I notice he's a modmin, so I have doubts here) then perhaps he's a different person from the fairly conservative person who's been on fark for many years; but I still think it's a childish moniker. And the comment stands that the republicons are treasonist bastards who should be in jail at the least for putting political ambitions ahead of the country in such a way as to attempt to destroy the economy so the tea baggers can take over the country and turn it into an oligarchy. I don't know how smart the dude is, but I have a mensa membership and am extremely well educated (both my parents had PhDs). I've got 61 spins around the sun that suggest I've seen more than the average person. Correct me if I'm wrong dumb blonde, Is this the same alt as the "original" 10 years at least poster with that name? I notice the dash spacing, and I think this may be a different person. In any event, blaming Obama for the failure of the 'cons to accept the (all major economics agree here) second jobs bill is specious. The 'cons are responsible for all our economic problems in the nation. Please enlighten me.
 
2012-09-08 08:21:29 AM
Taxation without representation.

We has it.

And it has out jobs.
 
2012-09-08 09:28:14 AM

soy_bomb: shastacola: soy_bomb: 368,000 people dropped out the job market, 96,000 found jobs. That's a recovery?

So the private sector won't hire despite paying the lowest taxes in history and the republicans will not pass a jobs bill.

Yea, they have been slacking....

[...]


Most of those have nothing to do with adding jobs, and in fact many of them would remove regulations that prevent companies from harming the environment or the consumer.

You did forget to include this bill which was signed into law by the President on April 5, 2012
H.R. 3606: Jumpstart Our Business Startups

And of course, the one that the House even refuses to bring to Committee for discussion, the American Jobs Act.
 
2012-09-08 11:33:55 AM

namatad: impaler: U3 and U6 say the same thing, they just have a different scale. So when someone states U6 (when everyone is used to U3's smaller scale), they're trying to mislead.

I have been tagging them as U6 trolls. And after a few postings, I just put them on ignore. they NEVER have anything to say. EVER


i50.tinypic.com
 
Displayed 384 of 384 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report