• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the lie? How could that data lie? Data doesn't lie, only how you interpret it. Are you misinterpreting the data?
How many private sector jobs did the private economy create during the Bush administration? Does the graph show it?
How you show the data can lead to a lie. You know this. In your heart of hearts you do. And if you look at just the data without your partisan hat on (which I am fine with you wearing) you will recognize that this particular graph was created with the intention of misrepresenting rather than informing.
 
How many private sector jobs did the private economy create during the Bush administration? Does the graph show it?
How you show the data can lead to a lie. You know this. In your heart of hearts you do. And if you look at just the data without your partisan hat on (which I am fine with you wearing) you will recognize that this particular graph was created with the intention of misrepresenting rather than informing.

That would be another chart. They may have it, if you want to look. You see, this chart is about the downward trend in job loss. If you want a chart about the upward trend of job creation during the first six years of his administration, I am sure it exists.

You know, let's say I could magically add Bush's data from earlier dates in there, and then some idiot comes in and says "but your leaving out the millions of jobs Clinton created just before that...". Where does it end? It's not relevant to the topic of the chart, so it isn't included. It's on a different chart where it belongs.
 
Well then, you obviously did not listen to the news much in '08. Obama wasn't even a twinkle in people's eyes when this economic downturn began. Do you not remember the housing market crash? I am slightly confused. If you need a refresher, I can help you on that subject.
You are very confused. No problem.

October 2008 -- Who was likely to win? McCain? or the one term Marxist?
If you were a successful business person and you knew that the three horsemen of the Apocalypse were coming you way to bankrupt you, to confound you, to seize your wealth, what would you do? Would you wait until January?

November 2008 -- The Marxist wins. Now what? Do you accelerate laying people off? Or do you wait until January? Do you read what others say about Dreams from My Communist Father and wait or do you begin shedding jobs before the Marxist is in position to strike you and your business dead? What do you do to protect yourself?
 
I see now. Whyso used your post as a crutch to validate his claim. He then made up the rest to 'make a point'. In review it looks like his point was 'your dumb...I can be dumb too'.

Sorry for the confusion.

Nail on the head. He chose about 8 random statistics with no historical data to back them up, so I did the same with Bush and Reagan. In no way do I really implicate them for those numbers, since they are just random pieces of information, but if he's going to spam his random stats, then I'll do the same right back to him.
 
You are very confused. No problem.

October 2008 -- Who was likely to win? McCain? or the one term Marxist?
If you were a successful business person and you knew that the three horsemen of the Apocalypse were coming you way to bankrupt you, to confound you, to seize your wealth, what would you do? Would you wait until January?

November 2008 -- The Marxist wins. Now what? Do you accelerate laying people off? Or do you wait until January? Do you read what others say about Dreams from My Communist Father and wait or do you begin shedding jobs before the Marxist is in position to strike you and your business dead? What do you do to protect yourself?

That's a great story, but it's a story. Do you have any sort of proof to back that up? I can cite source after source that show how the economy crashed, but all you have is some random conspiracy plot that you thought up in your head. I think if you want to know why businesses started laying people off, you may want to investigate the housing market crash, the "big short", the AAA-rated securities, insolvency of hundreds of domestic banks, and the inability to get a loan of any sort during that period.

No offense, but I don't think you have ever read a news article. :doh
 
Last edited:
How many private sector jobs did the private economy create during the Bush administration? .

Jan 2001 private sector employment 111634

Jan 2009 private sector employment 110981

CES0500000001_180170_1319513331528.jpg


Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 111634 111624 111555 111227 111146 110910 110737 110544 110276 109918 109575 109368
2002 109214 109054 108989 108892 108814 108824 108732 108671 108659 108772 108758 108595
2003 108640 108484 108286 108252 108274 108233 108231 108266 108421 108570 108611 108724
2004 108882 108913 109213 109437 109747 109841 109883 109984 110135 110465 110493 110624
2005 110718 110949 111095 111441 111583 111847 112122 112311 112392 112492 112796 112934
2006 113247 113533 113795 113961 113965 114049 114200 114347 114432 114438 114628 114803
2007 114993 115051 115251 115308 115419 115469 115486 115391 115396 115470 115568 115606
2008 115610 115482 115395 115209 114969 114752 114487 114170 113736 113245 112458 111822
2009 110981 110260 109473 108700 108374 107936 107649 107434 107221 106971 106937 106835



http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce
 
Last edited:
How is he shaving the data? When does it end? Does he need to show the numbers as long as history records them? Generally, when showing numbers, you only show the numbers that are relevant, and in the case of job loss, that's what you are looking at. Why would the Bureau of Labor Statistics feel the need to "shave" numbers?
It is good you ask the questions. View the data from the statisticians view point. Omit your partisan view for a moment. Should you select that perfect moment in history to show a symmetrical situation with Bush (policies) losing jobs in an increasing crescendo while the Marxist's (policies) side of the equation shows an equal rise? Not if you seek the truth. But certainly you would if you believe that advantage is more important than truth.

Do you think that the person who created this graph was non-partisan? Or is it more likely that he or she was out to provide an easily misinterpreted picture to show that Bush was bad and Obama was good?
 
Last edited:
That would be another chart. They may have it, if you want to look. You see, this chart is about the downward trend in job loss. If you want a chart about the upward trend of job creation during the first six years of his administration, I am sure it exists.

You know, let's say I could magically add Bush's data from earlier dates in there, and then some idiot comes in and says "but your leaving out the millions of jobs Clinton created just before that...". Where does it end? It's not relevant to the topic of the chart, so it isn't included. It's on a different chart where it belongs.
You do what you have done and agreed is the right approach if your path is to use statistics, graphs, and charts to tell the Big Lie.
Your path might be different if you were attempting to develop real insights into the policies that led to the data.
 
It is good you ask the questions. View the data from the statisticians view point. Omit the partisan view for a moment. Should you select that perfect moment in history to show a symmetrical situation with Bush (policies) losing jobs in an increasing crescendo while the Marxist's side of the equation shows an equal rise? Not if you seek the truth. But certainly if you believe that advantage is more important than truth.

Do you think that the person who created this graph was non-partisan? Or is it more likely that he or she was out to provide an easily misinterpreted picture to show that Bush was band and Obama was good?

Again, this is you adding conspiracy to fact. Could it be true? Maybe, but not likely (just like your crackpot scheme you cooked up earlier about what caused all of the job loss). What is more likely? Someone was charged with the task of creating a chart that showed where the trend of job loss began and how much, and how much recovery we have had since. Or some random statistician at the Bureau of Labor Statistics was like, "yeah man, I am going to make this graph that really makes Bush look bad!"

My turn to ask a question, Misterveritis:

If you were analyzing the market crash, and one of the major factors was job loss, would you give a **** about any numbers before the downward turn? If you aren't a partisan hack, the answer would be no, because your job is not to prove that it was or wasn't Bush's fault - your only job is the read the data that matters and make decisions based off of it.

Again, any success Bush had before this is irrelevant, because this isn't about whether or not Bush caused it or Obama caused it. It is simply data from relevant dates. You're putting the spin on it.

Are you trolling me right now?

You do what you have done and agreed is the right approach if your path is to use statistics, graphs, and charts to tell the Big Lie.
Your path might be different if you were attempting to develop real insights into the policies that led to the data.

What exactly is your point? Why do you want to see more data than what is provided?
 
Last edited:
That's a great story, but it's a story. Do you have any sort of proof to back that up? I can cite source after source that show how the economy crashed, but all you have is some random conspiracy plot that you thought up in your head. I think if you want to know why businesses started laying people off, you may want to investigate the housing market crash, the "big short", the AAA-rated securities, insolvency of hundreds of domestic banks, and the inability to get a loan of any sort during that period.

No offense, but I don't think you have ever read a news article. :doh
I just provided insights that fit the data. The whole point of statistics is to inform one's insights.
 
I just provided insights that fit the data. The whole point of statistics is to inform one's insights.

No, you made a story up with no actual reason for believing it. There are literally hundreds of news articles that tell the real story, but instead you'd rather sit here and make something up. That's fine, but you kind of seem like a weirdo.
 
So per the '09 tax tables the top 1% had an aggregate AGI of $1.964t. I doubt it went up substantially given the recent economy. Also consider the deficits we have been running the last 2-3yrs. Do you think taxing them is plausable? At what rate?

What are you talking about? I never claimed we could retire the debt in year by eliminating the tax breaks for the wealthy. It took 30 years of spending too much and tax breaks for the wealthy to create our debt. It is going to take 30 years of the reverse to eliminate our debt.


The original point was about the immediate effect it had. No one said 'permanent' that your refer to.

You suggested it was part of our economic recession.



Ambigious.

Painfully obvious I would say, its why people are protesting all over the country.



Me too for 32yrs but it worked for me. What did you do wrong?

I am not talking about me, I am talking about the middle class.

But...wealth is not taxed in this country. How will this pay for the increase in public employees?

By restoring some of the progressivity of income taxes, that doesn't tax income by the wealthy at a lower tax rate than the middle class.
 
Again, this is you adding conspiracy to fact. Could it be true? Maybe, but not likely (just like your crackpot scheme you cooked up earlier about what caused all of the job loss). What is more likely? Someone was charged with the task of creating a chart that showed where the trend of job loss began and how much, and how much recovery we have had since. Is that not a useful piece of information to know?
I have offered no conspiracy. It began to look like the Marxist was going to win starting in October a month before the election. Job losses greatly increased.
The Marxist won. Job losses continued at very high numbers for another four months.

My turn to ask a question, Misterveritis:

If you were analyzing the market crash, and one of the major factors was job loss, would you give a **** about any numbers before the downward turn?
It is a reasonable question. Is it the correct question? Do you believe the graph shown helps in any way to understand in any way why jobs were lost beginning in early 2008? I don't see it. Do you? How, in this graph, is the market crash correlated? I do not see that either?

We know it is possible to use a graph to mislead, to lie, to manipulate. This graph is evidence.
 
Here Marxist guy:

It's official: U.S. in a recession since December 2007 - Dec. 1, 2008

It's official: Recession since Dec. '07
The National Bureau of Economic Research declares what most Americans already knew: the downturn has been going on for some time.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .

The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures.

The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.

Employers have trimmed payrolls by 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of this year. On Friday, economists are predicting the government will report a loss of another 325,000 jobs for November.

The recession began in Dec 2007.

*Edit to add:

And oh my god, wouldn't you know, the graph you are complaining about began that very next month. Wow, what a coincidence.
 
Last edited:
I have offered no conspiracy. It began to look like the Marxist was going to win starting in October a month before the election. Job losses greatly increased.
The Marxist won. Job losses continued at very high numbers for another four months.

Conspiracy | Define Conspiracy at Dictionary.com
conspiracy theory 
noun
1.
a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
2.
the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Isn't that your entire argument? A conspiracy theory? That some giant cabal of businessmen thought, "Like, oh my god, Obama might get elected, let's fire some people". And your amazing ability to read one chart has led you to this belief, despite not one other person ever claiming it? Seriously, cite me a source in June of '08 that says, "Jobs being lost because Obama might get elected", and I'll leave the thread.

It is a reasonable question. Is it the correct question? Do you believe the graph shown helps in any way to understand in any way why jobs were lost beginning in early 2008? I don't see it. Do you? How, in this graph, is the market crash correlated? I do not see that either?

We know it is possible to use a graph to mislead, to lie, to manipulate. This graph is evidence.

The point of the graph is not to determine what caused the loss in jobs. Everyone knows what caused that except you. The point of the graph is to show economic trends - such as when jobs began to be lost and when they started to come back. Jesus H. Christ.
 
Last edited:
Here Marxist guy:

The recession began in Dec 2007.

*Edit to add:

And oh my god, wouldn't you know, the graph you are complaining about began that very next month. Wow, what a coincidence.
You may make whatever excuse you like.

What did the graph, shown the way it was shown tell you? Was this recession deeper or did it come on more swiftly that the earlier recession?

Or did it just paint a picture that we can spend a few trillions of dollars and save public sector union jobs for about a year?
 
You may make whatever excuse you like.

What did the graph, shown the way it was shown tell you? Was this recession deeper or did it come on more swiftly that the earlier recession?

Or did it just paint a picture that we can spend a few trillions of dollars and save public sector union jobs for about a year?

It showed me that job real job loss began in Jan '08 to which it progressively got worse until Jan '09, at which time it trended upward until we finally began adding jobs in Apr '10. Since then, we have added jobs in every month since.

What did you get out of it?
 
Isn't that your entire argument? A conspiracy theory? That some giant cabal of businessmen thought, "Like, oh my god, Obama might get elected, let's fire some people". And your amazing ability to read one chart has led you to this belief, despite not one other person ever claiming it? Seriously, cite me a source in June of '08 that says, "Jobs being lost because Obama might get elected", and I'll leave the thread.
Do you see that huge spike of job losses in October? Why did they happen? Below you said you know.
Why was this recession so much deeper than the previous recession? The graph plots job losses against time. We know what happened on the first Tuesday in November of 2008. Put a little tick mark by the left most edge of November 2008. Put Obama under the tick mark.



The point of the graph is not to determine what caused the loss in jobs. Everyone knows what caused that except you. The point of the graph is to show economic trends - such as when jobs began to be lost and when they started to come back. Jesus H. Christ.
There were no economic trends in this graph. There was only job losses for a very narrow period of time. A very symmetrical period of time.

I understand that you want to support a lie. It is not a big deal. You choose to be dishonest. I get it.
 
Last edited:
There were not economic trends in this graph. There was only job losses for a very narrow period of time. A very symmetrical period of time.

I understand that you want to support a lie. It is not a big deal. You choose to be dishonest. I get it.

You wouldn't call a steady decline every month for a year a trend? You wouldn't call a stead incline every month for 1 year and 8 months a trend? I don't think you know what a trend is.

This is ridiculous that you are allowed to troll this thread with such inane arguments. You make Conservative look like he has a PhD in Statistics.
 
It showed me that job real job loss began in Jan '08 to which it progressively got worse until Jan '09, at which time it trended upward until we finally began adding jobs in Apr '10. Since then, we have added jobs in every month since.

What did you get out of it?
This chart? I got very little as it was presented. But when I compared it to the previous recession it looks as if it was nearly twice as deep. What was the major difference? In my opinion the business people knew they were about to get socked in the gut by the Marxist and his duo.
 
You wouldn't call a steady decline every month for a year a trend? You wouldn't call a stead incline every month for 1 year and 8 months a trend? I don't think you know what a trend is.

This is ridiculous that you are allowed to troll this thread with such inane arguments. You make Conservative look like he has a PhD in Statistics.
Other than job losses plotted against time what other economic data did you see in the inverse pyramid? I understand that you are a partisan more concerned about putting the best possible spin on your Marxist president. That graph works just fine for that purpose. Did you draw any insights you did not have before? Were you able to integrate this with any data from previous recessions?
 
Other than job losses plotted against time what other economic data did you see in the inverse pyramid? I understand that you are a partisan more concerned about putting the best possible spin on your Marxist president. That graph works just fine for that purpose. Did you draw any insights you did not have before? Were you able to integrate this with any data from previous recessions?

What other data did I see on this inverse pyramid? Considering this graph only consists of job loss/gain, that's all I saw. Did you want it adorned with flowers or something? That's all the graph is about.

What exactly do you want in the graph that is not in there? Please, let us know what you want in there and why you want it in there. I literally have no idea what you are complaining about.

This chart? I got very little as it was presented. But when I compared it to the previous recession it looks as if it was nearly twice as deep. What was the major difference? In my opinion the business people knew they were about to get socked in the gut by the Marxist and his duo.

What recession? The recession in the early '80s? If so, that's a completely different animal.
 
Love it, instead of addressing the actual data I have become the issue with liberals.

Considering that you just wash rinse repeat your arguments, we've already turned your arguments into ground beef. Furthermore, we all know you cannot read data properly. I'm just telling people to stop wasting their time on someone who believes that the US population doubles monthly.

OC, noticed that you ignored the actual Obama results but instead prefer to make me the issue.

What results? That the economy is bad? When did I ever argue otherwise? (Hint: I didn't) What you ignore is that President has relatively little power over the economy. You want to blame him solely for the mess we're in.

And you are the problem.

That is the sign of desparation and attempts at politics of personal destruction.

Considering you haven't won an argument here since you started, that's not really saying much. I already destroyed you countless times. I have nothing to prove to you. Especially after you couldn't figure out the BLS data was cumulative.

After that fiasco, you are nothing but a clown to me.

Try as you might the facts remain, the Obama record is there for all to see and are as I have posted probably hunders of times now. You can continue to personally attack me but that doesn't change the Obama record.

When did I ever argue the economy isn't bad? Oh wait. I didn't. You are as usual being dishonest. But as we all have pointed out, your arguments are based on a massive failure to understand basic data. The fact you don't get why you can't use nominal, real and chain interchangeably is a partially why I don't invest much time in discussing things with you.

I have asked that the data be proven wrong and no one has done that. Why don't you try? What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty? Keep attacking me personally while ignoring the Obama results. Diversion is the greatest form of flattery. No one can change the reality that Jimmy Carter is smiling these days as Obama will replace him as our worst President in modern history.

Considering I didn't vote for Obama (I told you this before you lying hack) you're way out of your league. Furthermore, Obama is little more than a Bush clone. A president you have a genetic inability to criticize. And it's amusing you consider Obama worse than the presidents who let 500,000 Americans die needlessly.

You anything but credible.

FYI:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/111160-worst-presidents.html
 
Last edited:
What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty even in the face of data that proves you wrong? Wow, amazing faith in a failed ideology
translation, i have no rebuttal to the questions put before me, so i will jump to step 5
 
dem tax schemes have never been about efficient collection of revenue. Their beloved death tax wastes more money in avoidance, evasion and compliance than the tax brings it. Its all about pandering to their base and their base's base instincts of class envy and economic vandalism (if I cannot be rich the government should punish those who are).
no such thing as a 'death' tax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom