• 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.
Zing! Winning!!! LOL

Interesting that there is a lot of distortion in that number including downright lies yet doesn't matter as one liberal supports another Winning isn't generating the numbers Obama has generated but it doesn't matter to college kids nor those who rely on the taxpayers for their own existence
 
Bush and Reagan were terrible presidents by the numbers
Reagan GDP Changes of -3.2%, -4.9%, and -6.4%.

We've been through this before. Where did you get the above numbers. My research on BEA revealed:

Annually
1980 (0.28)
1981 2.48
1982 (1.98)
1983 4.32
1984 6.70
1985 3.97
1986 3.35
1987 3.10
1988 3.95
Quarterly
1980q1 0.32
1980q2 (2.09)
1980q3 (0.19)
1980q4 1.82
1981q1 2.04
1981q2 (0.80)
1981q3 1.20
1981q4 (1.26)
1982q1 (1.67)
1982q2 0.54
1982q3 (0.39)
1982q4 0.08
1983q1 1.23
1983q2 2.20
1983q3 1.93
1983q4 2.03
1984q1 1.90
1984q2 1.70
1984q3 0.96
1984q4 0.81
1985q1 0.93
1985q2 0.84
1985q3 1.54
1985q4 0.75
1986q1 0.95
1986q2 0.40
1986q3 0.95
1986q4 0.48
1987q1 0.55
1987q2 1.05
1987q3 0.86
1987q4 1.68
1988q1 0.51
1988q2 1.27
1988q3 0.51
1988q4 1.32
 
As you continue to ignore when did the Reagan, Bush, and Obama economic plans go into effect? Those aren't the GDP changes those are the changes adjusted for inflation. Here is what the GDP numbers are

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that you have to adjust for inflation. If you don't adjust for inflation then you have no idea what you are looking at. But just to humor you, if you look at Obama's numbers (not adjusted for inflation), they have also gone up every quarter since he has been in office:
2009q2 13,854.1
2009q3 13,920.5
2009q4 14,087.4
2010q1 14,277.9
2010q2 14,467.8
2010q3 14,605.5
2010q4 14,755.0
2011q1 14,867.8
2011q2 15,012.8
2011q3 15,198.6

Quit being a hack man. It's getting embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
I posted the September year to data numbers for the Obama Administration. The 25 million unemployed/under employed is the Sept. number

RE post number 1675 in this thread:

Obama economic results in 2011,
.4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011(bea.gov)
2010 2011
I II III IV I II
3.9 3.8 2.5 2.3 0.4 1.3
 
We've been through this before. Where did you get the above numbers. My research on BEA revealed:

Those numbers to not appear to match any of the percent change numbers on bea.gov's website. Here is the link:

bea.gov percent change in GDP by year. My numbers were from the right side: quarterly adjustments in 2005 dollars.
 
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that you have to adjust for inflation. If you don't adjust for inflation then you have no idea what you are looking at. But just to humor you, if you look at Obama's numbers (not adjusted for inflation), they have also gone up every quarter since he has been in office:


Quit being a hack man. It's getting embarrassing.

Is this the bs you are learning in school? Pretty scaring that you do not understand the role of the govt.
 
Those numbers to not appear to match any of the percent change numbers on bea.gov's website. Here is the link:

bea.gov percent change in GDP by year. My numbers were from the right side: quarterly adjustments in 2005 dollars.

Do the people living in the 80's pay the 2005 values for the things they purchase? Did the people of the 80's pay debt service in 2005 dollars? Did 2005 dollars generate 17 million jobs in the 80's. If your posts are an indication of what you are learning in college, no wonder this country is in a mess
 
Is this the bs you are learning in school? Pretty scaring that you do not understand the role of the govt.

Do you want to see what I am learning in school? Here you go:

"On January 1, 2007, Abby sold a share of stock A short for a price of 80. On that same date, Ben sold a share of stock B short for a price of P. Both Abby and Ben bought back and returned, to the original owners, their respective shares of stock on December 31, 2007, when the per-share price of stock A was 70, and the per-share stock B was 120. At the end of 2007, just prior to the close of the short position, stock B paid a dividend of 2 per share, while stock A paid no dividend. Both Abby and Ben were subject to a margin requirement of 50%, and interest on the margin accounts was credit an an annual effective rate of 3%. During 2007, Abby's short sale transaction had an annual effect yield rate r(A), and Ben's transaction had an annual effective yield of r(B). The relationship between the two yields was r(B) = -2r(A). Calculate P."

Are you sure you want to argue numbers with me?

(Actually, that was a few semesters ago - now I am learning how to apply interest theory with risk assessment)
 
Do you want to see what I am learning in school? Here you go:

"On January 1, 2007, Abby sold a share of stock A short for a price of 80. On that same date, Ben sold a share of stock B short for a price of P. Both Abby and Ben bought back and returned, to the original owners, their respective shares of stock on December 31, 2007, when the per-share price of stock A was 70, and the per-share stock B was 120. At the end of 2007, just prior to the close of the short position, stock B paid a dividend of 2 per share, while stock A paid no dividend. Both Abby and Ben were subject to a margin requirement of 50%, and interest on the margin accounts was credit an an annual effective rate of 3%. During 2007, Abby's short sale transaction had an annual effect yield rate r(A), and Ben's transaction had an annual effective yield of r(B). The relationship between the two yields was r(B) = -2r(A). Calculate P."

Are you sure you want to argue numbers with me?

Those numbers have nothing to do with the Obama record which is the issue and part of this thread topic. Ask your professor to explain the Obama results to you if he/she has a clue

Idiotic example when someone buys or sells a stock unless that is a new stock offering the revenue doesn't go back to the company
 
Last edited:
Do the people living in the 80's pay the 2005 values for the things they purchase? Did the people of the 80's pay debt service in 2005 dollars? Did 2005 dollars generate 17 million jobs in the 80's. If your posts are an indication of what you are learning in college, no wonder this country is in a mess

The fact that you get to vote is scary. If you have 5 dollars in 1985 and then you have 5 dollars in 2005, can you buy the same things? That's why you adjust for inflation. $5 in 1985 does not equal $5 in 2005.
 
The fact that you get to vote is scary. If you have 5 dollars in 1985 and then you have 5 dollars in 2005, can you buy the same things? That's why you adjust for inflation. $5 in 1985 does not equal $5 in 2005.

If I have five dollars in 1985 I will be paying 1985 prices and not holding that dollar until 2005 to spend it. The fact that I am supplementing your education with my taxdollars is what it truly scary.
 
Those numbers to not appear to match any of the percent change numbers on bea.gov's website. Here is the link:

bea.gov percent change in GDP by year. My numbers were from the right side: quarterly adjustments in 2005 dollars.

Well see there's your problem. The data I posted was 'Real' GDP. Yours are based on:
Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.
 
Those numbers have nothing to do with the Obama record which is the issue and part of this thread topic. Ask your professor to explain the Obama results to you if he/she has a clue

Idiotic example when someone buys or sells a stock unless that is a new stock offering the revenue doesn't go back to the company

My professor for interest theory/Actuary Math I & II is a genius, though I doubt she would spend as much time as I do explaining rudimentary mathematics and economics to you.
 
If I have five dollars in 1985 I will be paying 1985 prices and not holding that dollar until 2005 to spend it. The fact that I am supplementing your education with my taxdollars is what it truly scary.

Yes, correct, if you have $5 in 1985 you will pay 1985 prices. But if you have $7 in 1990, you do not have more than you had in 1985 - though if you do not adjust for inflation it will look that way. Do you get that or is that over your head still?

So if the GDP was 100 in 1985 and inflation was 5% and in 1986 GDP was 103, GDP actually went down because you should have 105 if it matched inflation. I don't know how I can explain this any better to you.
 
Well see there's your problem. The data I posted was 'Real' GDP. Yours are based on:
Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.

Where are your numbers? A link is usually the way people cite things.
 
My professor for interest theory/Actuary Math I & II is a genius, though I doubt she would spend as much time as I do explaining rudimentary mathematics and economics to you.

Wow, I am really impressed, wonder how many jobs he has created? Sounds to me like another book smart street stupid liberal genius
 
Wow, I am really impressed, wonder how many jobs he has created? Sounds to me like another book smart street stupid liberal genius

I have no idea whether she is liberal or not. What the hell does that have to do with anything? :doh
 
Yes, correct, if you have $5 in 1985 you will pay 1985 prices. But if you have $7 in 1990, you do not have more than you had in 1985 - though if you do not adjust for inflation it will look that way. Do you get that or is that over your head still?

So if the GDP was 100 in 1985 and inflation was 5% and in 1986 GDP was 103, GDP actually went down because you should have 105 if it matched inflation. I don't know how I can explain this any better to you.

Don't care about inflation in the 80's but did at the time nor do I care about 1980's GDP expressed in 2005 dollars but what I do care about are the 17 million jobs that the Reagan economy generated and the 2.6 million job loss that Obama has generated. Ask your professor to explain that to you.
 
Don't care about inflation in the 80's but did at the time nor do I care about 1980's GDP expressed in 2005 dollars but what I do care about are the 17 million jobs that the Reagan economy generated and the 2.6 million job loss that Obama has generated. Ask your professor to explain that to you.

Get a link, cite your numbers directly, and let's examine them.
 
Get a link, cite your numbers directly, and let's examine them.

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
 
Because being book smart and street stupid doesn't generate results in the real world.

So you think it is a good idea to call a person (who has a PhD) you have never met and know absolutely nothing about "another book smart street stupid liberal genius"? No wonder you never learned anything about economics or math.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom