The two biggest lies

HoongLoong said:

SORRY !!!

I was looking at Code 1211's quoted STATS where his data started on JULY 20 2008, and INADVERTENTLY, MISTAKENLY, without thinking, I used that as a basis when Obama took office.......which is of course an ERROR. Obama was sworn in sometime in January, 2009

That does not invalidate Code 1221's quoted stats about employment/unemployment because pbrauers stats of 2009 are way into 2009 ..... way after Jan 2009 when Obama took office.

PLUS Grim 17's QUOTED STATS make pbrauer's suck.

Click to expand...

4 years ago is what i was showing.

code1211 said:

More extreme than Bush.

What does that mean? Could you please do a little compare and contrast on the positions that demonstrate the truth in this statement?

Click to expand...

Shiang is prolific on verbiage.

Short on FACT.

Travis is right. Shiang does not know the meaning of FACT,

KopeAcetic said:

I didn't say Obama did a great job, I was just debating his points. In most (if not all) debatable facets, the economy is better now than when Obama took office.

Click to expand...

Let's take one incontrovertible, but an all meaning stat w/r/t to your comment: How can the Economy be better now than when Obama took office if the median family has $4000 less.

Also, how can your comment be true if EVERY POLL WITHOUT EXCEPTION, done on ALL the IMPORTANT facets of the Economy shows that we are worse of NOW then when Obama took office ?????

Grim17 said:

It doesn't have to be stated... It's a statistical FACT.

Click to expand...

If hes using quotes, then Id like to see who hes quoting.

shiang said:

"We have less jobs than we did four years ago"

"Our economy is worse than it was four years ago"

It's simply not true and makes me sick to my stomach to see it over and over again.

Reason why they do this? If you tell a lie enough times eventually some people will believe you.

...of course they probably mean jobs by "bonus of CEO's who crash companies" that's mitt Romney job and I hope he's out of work soon.

Click to expand...

How come you can't just make a point without heading into the partisan hackery?

Data from BLS on total number of people 'out' of the workforce, meaning those over 16, who have not even bothered looking for work in a month or more.



Is this an 'improvement'? To have that many more millions of people out of work to the point they give up on even finding a job? To have government not even count them in the real unemployment numbers?

I believe all but the most ardent right wing hacks understand the economy was in a tailspin that wasn't going to be fixed quickly without major commitments from everyone. Not just the government but everyone. Most money managers just sat the whole mess out with a 'I got mine, you best look to getting yours' attitude. Hell ya the debt is bad but don't expect me to help!

The factors that influence the average Citizen's 'wealth' are home value and 401(k). The nose dive our economy took after so free wheeling a run with the 'invisible hand' wasn't like the dot.com crash that could be isolated to a sector that overheated but didn't ignite the rest the house of cards.

Report after report, survey after survey shows the collapsed housing market is what knocked the average net worth down so hard. Roughly 60% of the value of principle homes is held by the lower 90%. That undermines net worth of the 'average' citizen.

Willard has no magic plan to dramatically increase home values. There is no quick fix to residue of the overvalued housing market. It was an artificial construct pumping money through the economy based on speculation. What houses were actually worth before the crash is a good topic of discussion.

Was the lower 90%s house value a real sustainable number? Was the Dow Jones built on a solid foundation or fund manager necessity?

Looking back at 4 years ago compared to now-
are we better off with the overvalue, overhype driven out of housing and the stock market?

Are we better off to restart our economy a more solid base than speculative profit taking?

Unemployment is rough. Several times in our history our economic base has shifted. We were an agrarian economy, a fledgling industrial one, then from horse drawn to mechanized. Imagine if our President back then had promised a return to traditional 'American' industry and spent millions trying to keep the buggy whip businesses up and running.

I notice a lot of talk promising a return of manufacturing jobs, but no real details on just how that works.

Our economy is changing, has been changing for decades and employment was tottered on a ragged edge that was pushed off when the credit ponzi scheme fell apart on Wall Street. Sucks ass no real effort was made to help transition from heavy durable goods to the new financial/services economy. Would be nice to have spent the last decade transitioning to alternative energy sources instead of demanding more of the same.

I can't see the sense of always talking about retreating to some 'golden days' myth when the future lies ahead, not behind.

Four years ago the average citizen was sitting on a powder keg, wasn't a nice explosion but most of us survived- some amazingly well which makes their current lamentations a bit contrived- and we survivors now have a much more solid base to build a new stairway to heaven on.

Will be interesting to see what we do next.

code1211 said:

That's what you took from that? That ringing you hear is the alarm clock. Be alarmed.

Click to expand...

No, that's not all I took from that, but that is quote obviously a red flag, someone basically saying "I don't want to talk with you, I want to talk at you, have my point heard and if you don't agree you're obviously wrong." It is a recurring pattern that I see here, and everywhere else where people are talking about politics and that's actually part of the reason why I came here, to test out a new mindset for myself.

I was actually liberal for many years, always saw the other side and I've always given credit where credit was due but I didn't think that the right had the correct ideology. I looked at that and said, "Why do I feel that way? Do I actually disagree with them, and why is the tone so vitriolic right now?" I believe it to be the two party system. People can easily say, "If my side is good and correct, then the other side that's opposite mine is obviously wrong most of the time and bad." I decided to actively change my mindset so I'm no longer on a team. I still have some left leanings but I definitely have some right leanings as well.

After my aforementioned change, I took a look around at how each side was acting and the team mentality became more obvious than ever. I believe it to be the #1 threat to this country, is both sides not being able to listen to anything outside of their own party's rhetoric. This is why I will not listen to people on either side when they are showing obvious signs of not even attempting to listen to anything but their own side, they're so entrenched in their world that they can't see out of it, which makes them not able to see anything.

That's what I saw in that quote, like it or leave it.

code1211 said:

The latest month for which the BLS lists stats is July 2012. Total employed in the USA is 142,220,000.

Same month four years ago was July, 2008. At that time in that year, Total employed was 145,819,000.

You are are factually incorrect. Ignorant or disingenuous?

There were 3.5 million more employed and 11 million fewer alive. The household income average of the USA is down by $4,000 per house.

If you are in love with the Big 0, I can understand that, Why lie about his record?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_08012008.pdf

Click to expand...

So there are 11 millon 4 year olds or younger without jobs? Disgraceful.

Housing is dwon because of the Bush run Subprime Housing bubble but somehow you count it against Obama.
Bush left us with an economy losing 700,000 jobs a month. Obama has turned it around to 29 months of gains. How does than make us worse off?
Obama has alredy created more jobs than Bush did in 8 years, look it up.

iguanaman said:

So there are 11 millon 4 year olds or younger without jobs? Disgraceful.

Housing is dwon because of the Bush run Subprime Housing bubble but somehow you count it against Obama.
Bush left us with an economy losing 700,000 jobs a month. Obama has turned it around to 29 months of gains. How does than make us worse off?
Obama has alredy created more jobs than Bush did in 8 years, look it up.

Click to expand...

Do you think this is hard to look up?

Net jobs created under Bush through January, 2009: 6.1 million.
Net jobs created under Obama through July, 2012: 121,000

Employment Situation Archived News Releases

Are you ignorant or disingenuous? Maybe just Democrat?

Housing is down because the economy is in the dumper. The U6 factor is about 15%. Household income is down by $4000 since obama took office.

The recession ended, according to economists, in June 2009 well before anything obama did could have helped. He has managed to hobble the economy in spite of everything for another 3 years through today.

What possible good does it do for you to support a guy who is harming you, your family and your future?

We know that Obama cannot do the job. If he could and hasn't done it yet, that's almost like treason. If he can't and he has proven that pretty well by now, why prolong the pain?

Grim17 said:

Well, there are definitely less people employed today then there was 4 years ago and only 86 thousand more than the day Obama took office. Too bad the population and number of eligible workers hasn't stayed the same, or things might actually look ok:

View attachment 67133942

Click to expand...

Inauguration: Jan 20 2009
$787 Billion Stimulus signed into law (first major economic legislation): Feb 17 2009
Year or too for policies to take effect: Jan 2010 - Jan 2011 should be the range from where we start to link the economy to Obama

Republicans controlling house: Jan 2011
Time where we credit the effects of having a republican house: Jan 2012 - Jan 2013 and on, so what ever change happens on the RATE OF CHANGE (2nd derivative) right now should be linked to the effects of putting more Republicans in congress.

Ok yes, that chart looks about correct and yes technically exactly 4 years ago obama wasn't in office, much less having his policies taking any effect. Most policies take a year or two to take effect some much longer and not even in a presidents term. Obama's inauguration was Jan 20, 2009 Inauguration of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, his policies weren't even passed the day he entered office much less taking any effect so for the years where his policies should be in place should look at the start of 2010. It's easy to see the numbers going up, maybe not fast enough but to spin the words to make it sound like the total number of jobs went down when Obama's policies are in effect is simply wrong. July and August are showing numbers of a natural mini recession cycle with .2% drop in jobs.

Thank you very much for providing that nice organized chart.

shiang said:

Inauguration: Jan 20 2009
$787 Billion Stimulus signed into law (first major economic legislation): Feb 17 2009
Year or too for policies to take effect: Jan 2010 - Jan 2011 should be the range from where we start to link the economy to Obama

Republicans controlling house: Jan 2011
Time where we credit the effects of having a republican house: Jan 2012 - Jan 2013 and on, so what ever change happens on the RATE OF CHANGE (2nd derivative) right now should be linked to the effects of putting more Republicans in congress.

Ok yes, that chart looks about correct and yes technically exactly 4 years ago obama wasn't in office, much less having his policies taking any effect. Most policies take a year or two to take effect some much longer and not even in a presidents term. Obama's inauguration was Jan 20, 2009 Inauguration of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, his policies weren't even passed the day he entered office much less taking any effect so for the years where his policies should be in place should look at the start of 2010. It's easy to see the numbers going up, maybe not fast enough but to spin the words to make it sound like the total number of jobs went down when Obama's policies are in effect is simply wrong. July and August are showing numbers of a natural mini recession cycle with .2% drop in jobs.

Thank you very much for providing that nice organized chart.

Click to expand...

LMMFAO

So now the complete and total failure of Obama's economic policies is the republican's fault.

ROFLMMFAO

Grim17 said:

LMMFAO

So now the complete and total failure of Obama's economic policies is the republican's fault.

ROFLMMFAO

Click to expand...

It's getting to the point where it's ridiculous.

Hopeless.

shiang said:

Inauguration: Jan 20 2009
$787 Billion Stimulus signed into law (first major economic legislation): Feb 17 2009
Year or too for policies to take effect: Jan 2010 - Jan 2011 should be the range from where we start to link the economy to Obama

Republicans controlling house: Jan 2011
Time where we credit the effects of having a republican house: Jan 2012 - Jan 2013 and on, so what ever change happens on the RATE OF CHANGE (2nd derivative) right now should be linked to the effects of putting more Republicans in congress.

Ok yes, that chart looks about correct and yes technically exactly 4 years ago obama wasn't in office, much less having his policies taking any effect. Most policies take a year or two to take effect some much longer and not even in a presidents term. Obama's inauguration was Jan 20, 2009 Inauguration of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, his policies weren't even passed the day he entered office much less taking any effect so for the years where his policies should be in place should look at the start of 2010. It's easy to see the numbers going up, maybe not fast enough but to spin the words to make it sound like the total number of jobs went down when Obama's policies are in effect is simply wrong. July and August are showing numbers of a natural mini recession cycle with .2% drop in jobs.

Thank you very much for providing that nice organized chart.

Click to expand...

Here is a stat that Republicans don't like to hear but it's absolutely true that since the beginning of 2010 4.5 private sector jobs have been added to the economy. Granted this isn't near enough, but it's a start and a far cry from the 800K/ month jobs lost when Obama took office.

pbrauer said:

Here is a stat that Republicans don't like to hear but it's absolutely true that since the beginning of 2010 4.5 private sector jobs have been added to the economy. Granted this isn't near enough, but it's a start and a far cry from the 800K/ month jobs lost when Obama took office.

Click to expand...

I will assume you meant to say 4.5 million, but the 4.5 jobs you site is more accurate. Freudian slip?

Do you have BKS Statistics to back that up or just your DNC Propaganda rag?

code1211 said:

I will assume you meant to say 4.5 million, but the 4.5 jobs you site is more accurate. Freudian slip?

Do you have BKS Statistics to back that up or just your DNC Propaganda rag?

Click to expand...

He is correct. He loves to cherry pick statistics in order to avoid addressing the dismal reality of Obama's failed policies.

pbrauer said:

Here is a stat that Republicans don't like to hear but it's absolutely true that since the beginning of 2010 4.5 private sector jobs have been added to the economy. Granted this isn't near enough, but it's a start and a far cry from the 800K/ month jobs lost when Obama took office.

Click to expand...

Republicans dont like to hear it because its not enough. There are less people employed now than before the recession, in spite of (or because of) 4 years of Democrat economic policies and more than 12 trillion dollars spent.

code1211 said:

I will assume you meant to say 4.5 million, but the 4.5 jobs you site is more accurate. Freudian slip?

Do you have BKS Statistics to back that up or just your DNC Propaganda rag?

Click to expand...

You are correct, I forgot the word ''millions"
You can calculate it from the Original data value by subtracting the Dec 2009 value from the Aug 2012 value. Or sum all the months from Jan 2010 to the present in the 1-Month Net Change link.
In either case you will find that 4.56 million private sector jobs have been added since the beginning of 2010.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data - Private Sector Original Data Value
Bureau of Labor Statistics Dataof Labor Statistics Data - Private Sector 1-Month Net Change

pbrauer said:

You are correct, I forgot the word ''millions"
You can calculate it from the Original data value by subtracting the Dec 2009 value from the Aug 2012 value. Or sum all the months from Jan 2010 to the present in the 1-Month Net Change link.
In either case you will find that 4.56 million private sector jobs have been added since the beginning of 2010.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data - Private Sector Original Data Value
Bureau of Labor Statistics Dataof Labor Statistics Data - Private Sector 1-Month Net Change

Click to expand...

At what cost?

jonny5 said:

At what cost?

Click to expand...

Cost??
I'm talking about private sector jobs, not government jobs.:roll:

HoongLoong said:

Then provide the stats to prove your assertion.

IOW, put up or STFU.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

Please cite data that supports your assertion.

Click to expand...

Sorry, was out of town. You stated this

code1211 said:

By any metric, both statements are unequivocally true.

Click to expand...

Key here...by ANY metric.

If an individuals view the statement whether "Our economy is worse than it was four years ago" in the sense of the trending direction of the economy now compared to when Obama took over then the numbers would give them the ability to say "No, it's not." Why?

From January of 09 to August of 09, you saw a decrease of almost 2.6 million people, from 142.1 million to 139.5 million. Unemployment went from 7.6 to 9.7%. It was trending downwards

Now lets look at January of 12 to August of 12, where you are seeing an increase. Total employment has improved by roughly half a million people. Unemployments trending down from 8.3% to 8.1%. It's trending upwards.

By that metric of judging if the economy is better now than when he took over, an argument can be made that it is.

Another metric one could do is suggesting that the stock market is a good indication of whether the economy's better or worse. Going off that...

2009
DJ: 10,172.89
Nasdaq: 1,477.29
S&P: 831.95

Today
DJ: 13,090.84
Nasdaq: 3,066.96
S&P: 1406.58

Difference
DJ: +2,917.95
Nasdaq: +1,589.67
S&P: +574.63

DJ Source
Nasdaq Source
S&P Source

All three of the big ones are far improved.

The issue you made was you claimed they were unquestionably true using ANY metric one wishes. You're simply, factually, incorrect in large part because there's no universal, unquestioned, set in stone, definitive determination of how to judge the health of an economy

Zyphlin said:

Sorry, was out of town. You stated this



Key here...by ANY metric.

If an individuals view the statement whether "Our economy is worse than it was four years ago" in the sense of the trending direction of the economy now compared to when Obama took over then the numbers would give them the ability to say "No, it's not." Why?

From January of 09 to August of 09, you saw a decrease of almost 2.6 million people, from 142.1 million to 139.5 million. Unemployment went from 7.6 to 9.7%. It was trending downwards

Now lets look at January of 12 to August of 12, where you are seeing an increase. Total employment has improved by roughly half a million people. Unemployments trending down from 8.3% to 8.1%. It's trending upwards.

By that metric of judging if the economy is better now than when he took over, an argument can be made that it is.

Another metric one could do is suggesting that the stock market is a good indication of whether the economy's better or worse. Going off that...

2009
DJ: 10,172.89
Nasdaq: 1,477.29
S&P: 831.95

Today
DJ: 13,090.84
Nasdaq: 3,066.96
S&P: 1406.58

Difference
DJ: +2,917.95
Nasdaq: +1,589.67
S&P: +574.63

DJ Source
Nasdaq Source
S&P Source

All three of the big ones are far improved.

The issue you made was you claimed they were unquestionably true using ANY metric one wishes. You're simply, factually, incorrect in large part because there's no universal, unquestioned, set in stone, definitive determination of how to judge the health of an economy

Click to expand...

With regard to the stock market, the USA, while not doing great, is a safer bet than most of the rest of the world. We are getting cash from around the globe. Also, businesses that are not expanding looking for any place to put cash that gets any return at all. The stock market is the result of many things, not just a measure of the county's economic health.

The unemployment rate dropped because of the demented method of figuring the ratio. Since 368,000 became inconsolably hopeless and simply dropped out of the job market, the rate dropped even though the number of employed americans also dropped. The economy in regular, normal times adds about a quarter million jobs every month and this is a break even number. in August, that number was 96,000.

The average gain of jobs January-July is 583,00 according to the BLS and that is an average of 72,875 per month. Pathetic.

We are hurting and the guy at the wheel is allowing the engine to idle while the car we sit in sits motionless in the garage.

August jobs report: hiring down, unemployment falls - Sep. 7, 2012

Employment Situation Archived News Releases

pbrauer said:

You are correct, I forgot the word ''millions"
You can calculate it from the Original data value by subtracting the Dec 2009 value from the Aug 2012 value. Or sum all the months from Jan 2010 to the present in the 1-Month Net Change link.
In either case you will find that 4.56 million private sector jobs have been added since the beginning of 2010.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data - Private Sector Original Data Value
Bureau of Labor Statistics Dataof Labor Statistics Data - Private Sector 1-Month Net Change

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you're figuring this. I'm not sure what the numbers in your table represent.

In the USA, the BLS says that the workforce has grown by only 1.297 million. Over the same period, the population grew by 11 million. I don't know if everyone who would have reached working age died suddenly or if that many people just lost all hope.

The number employed has grown by 121,000 since the Big 0 took office. I can't seem to figure out where you are coming up with your number. If that many jobs were added, then the total employed would be 146,599,000. that number is only 142,220,000.

code1211 said:

With regard to the stock market, the USA, while not doing great, is a safer bet than most of the rest of the world. We are getting cash from around the globe. Also, businesses that are not expanding looking for any place to put cash that gets any return at all. The stock market is the result of many things, not just a measure of the county's economic health.

Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that some people utilize the stock market as a "metric" to judge the economy, and it's a "metric" that is doing better than at the start of his term. As you said, "ANY metric"

The unemployment rate dropped because

Click to expand...

...because of a bunch of irrelevant information to my point, which is that the METRIC of the unemployment rate is dropping over the past 8 months where as it was increased over the first 8 months, so if one wished to judge it on that metric they could suggest it's "better". YOU pigeon holed yourself by claiming it was unequivocally true under ANY metric. You can attempt to excuse or argue against the notion that the unemployment rate doesn't matter as much on it's own, it doesn't magically make it not a legitimate metric some may use.

The average gain of jobs January-July is 583,00 according to the BLS and that is an average of 72,875 per month. Pathetic.

Click to expand...

Which addresses my point in zero ways. Congratulations, you're beating up that strawman you're creating wonderfully well.

We are hurting and the guy at the wheel is allowing the engine to idle while the car we sit in sits motionless in the garage.

Click to expand...

Is your strawman enjoying your rhetoric, because I have to imagine he's your audience because I surely am not. Pointless rhetoric doesn't negate my point regarding your own ridiculous suggestion that the notion that the economy is worse now than 4 years ago under ANY metric is universally true.

The reality is as I stated it in my first post....

Depending on what method one wants to utilize to deem the health of the economy, depending on the time period choice that an individual chooses to make their judgements, depending on the particular view point on the numbers an individual ones, that an argument can be successfully made that the economy is worse than it was at the start of Obama's term and that it is better off than it was at the start of Obama's term. Suggesting that it's not "good" is not the same as suggesting it's not "better" than it was at the start of his term. One could absolutely argue both, at the same time, that the economy is better than it was when he took over AND that it's not a good economy.

pbrauer said:

Cost??
I'm talking about private sector jobs, not government jobs.:roll:

Click to expand...

Youre trying to connect them to Obama policies, which cost trillions of dollars. :lol::3oops::2razz::mrgreen:

jonny5 said:

Youre trying to connect them to Obama policies, which cost trillions of dollars. :lol::3oops::2razz::mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Most of the "Obama policies" should be considered his only because his Administration has continued those policies first instigated during the Bush years. Three fourths of the increase in spending is a direct result of actions taken during previous Administrations.