• 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.
I don't think that was me making that post you are talking about.

Did you not post:

I think you are touch confused. You were talking to someone else about their sources. If you want my sources you'll find them in this post (Opposition to Obama grows - strongly). And unlike Conservative's, you'll find them exactly where I linked them. No hunting. No deception. Right there.

Pointing me to it?
 
most of the stuff on reagan and bush was mine. The reason i chose those numbers was because there is a member named conservative who picked a few numbers at random as well. I was merely showing him i can do the same to any other president, and i was clearly successful.

*edit: If you are really going to critique my stuff, you should probably read up on the thread a bit first and gain some understanding about why it was posted.

i wasn't the one using it for reference!!!
 
Clearly more than you hope for the health of the country. Like I said insane hatred leads you.
Hope (and chains) are not a strategy. The one term Marxist president is the worst disaster to befall the nation.

I never disputed the massive drops in jobs. Never.
This may be the beginning of wisdom.

There you go. Now you can see what happened. Economies are not exactly nimble enough to turn around on a dime unfortunately so your asinine statement that all that huge slide of Bush's loss of jobs should have all the sudden been fixed on January 20, 2009 is absurd at best. BTW Mr. Blame Obama... that january spike... 20 days of it was Bush, 11 days of it was Obama. LOL!!!
The Marxist got elected. In the same month the number of newly unemployed went from around 600,000 to over 700,000.

Candidate Obama bragged about how he was going to transform the nation (from what -- capitalist free market) to what (socialist utopia).
Candidate Obama bragged about bankrupting coal companies and skyrocketing energy costs. Well, what do you know buckaroo? He created a crisis and he got one.

Why doesn't small business hire people?

Could it be that the Marxist has essentially made class warfare the centerpiece of his administration?

If you had a business how would you protect yourself from the Marxist's administration?
 
Last edited:
Hope (and chains) are not a strategy. The one term Marxist president is the worst disaster to befall the nation.


This may be the beginning of wisdom.

There you go. Now you can see what happened. Economies are not exactly nimble enough to turn around on a dime unfortunately so your asinine statement that all that huge slide of Bush's loss of jobs should have all the sudden been fixed on January 20, 2009 is absurd at best. BTW Mr. Blame Obama... that january spike... 20 days of it was Bush, 11 days of it was Obama. LOL!!!
The Marxist got elected. In the same month the number of newly unemployed went for around 600,000 to over 700,000.

Candidate Obama bragged about how he was going to transform the nation (from what -- capitalist free market) to what (socialist utopia).
Candidate Obama bragged about bankrupting coal companies and skyrocketing energy costs. Well, what do you know buckaroo? He created a crisis and he got one.

Why doesn't small business hire people?

Could it be that the Marxist has essentially made class warfare the centerpiece of his administration?

If you had a business how would you protect yourself from the Marxist's administration?

You're a Marxist.
 
Notice the graph and which presidency was headed in the wrong direction and which president was headed in the right direction.

View attachment 67117476

See how the Fascist president prior to 2009 inauguration was going in the wrong direction?
I have a wonderful book called How to Lie with Statistics. What does the entire data set look like for both presidents?
Did the entire Bush presidency occur after Jan 08?
Are you just sloppy? Or, despite your Marine background, do you lack integrity?
 
I have a wonderful book called How to Lie with Statistics. What does the entire data set look like for both presidents?
Did the entire Bush presidency occur after Jan 08?
Are you just sloppy? Or, despite your Marine background, do you lack integrity?

He didn't make that graph, it came from bls.gov - so unless you are saying that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is lying and has no integrity, then you might want to relax a bit.. Have you even read this thread at all? Please, go back 5-6 pages to see where Conservative was using random data from any given point in time that he chose to prove a point. The point of that graph is to show trends, that's why it started where it did. Maybe you should try reading your book.

Intentionally misrepresenting another person's statistics is a Marxist thing to do, you damn Marxist DP poster.
 
Last edited:
No, merely inquiring how one defines 'rich'. If it is 'not poor, i.e. in poverty' then yes, the low end of the bracket is around $25k/yr.

Hint: Its more than $25,000 a year. The top 1% I believe starts around $396,000.


You missed the point. A reaction, or 'over-reaction' requires an intitial action. Would the market have fallen if the planes had NOT hit the building?

Perhaps I missed the part where you explained how the 3 planes hitting buildings (in an of itself) had any permanent effect on the markets. Please reference the post where you went into that.

HUH? You take from consumers via taxation then create new employees, give them the taken money and the consumers have more??? How does that work?

It works the opposite of what has been done over the last 30 years, where taxes have been increased on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. The only difference is that more progressive taxes allow greater stimulation of our consumer based economy, because more people have money to spend.

The rich are going to get theirs as the BANKING system is gamed for them to capitalize on it. The 'poor' can also if they tried. But your supposition to correct this is to hire more government employees is misdirected resources.

If I had not personally witnessed the failure of trickle down economics for the last 30 years, you might be able to sell me on its continuation. Thanks, but no thanks!

Do the 'rich' have exclusive rights to the infrastructure? Aren't all those who use infrastructure ABLE to use it to create wealth?

I guess you need to understand the connection between wealth and power to see how the top 1% owning most of the wealth in the country does not allow an even playing field.
 
Last edited:
Correlation does not imply causation, and you chose a fantastic example to prove that rule. There is simply no way someone can cause 700,000 jobs to be lost simply by being inaugurated.
Granted on the first. But why do you believe the second?

The Marxist's election was an unprecedented disaster for the nation. Why wouldn't successful people, knowing what was coming, have done what they could to protect their businesses?
 
Granted on the first. But why do you believe the second?

The Marxist's election was an unprecedented disaster for the nation. Why wouldn't successful people, knowing what was coming, have done what they could to protect their businesses?

Here's a better one: Is it more likely that someone who hadn't even taken office yet caused downward trends in every market (hell he hadn't even been elected when the downward trends started) or that a massive economic collapse in multiple different areas of the economy would cause that to happen?

I'll let you choose. I do admit, it was very unfortunate for Obama that he got elected right in the thick of things - the depression was already in full swing, and his entire presidency has been about trying to slowly drag the economy back up to par.
 
Notice the graph and which presidency was headed in the wrong direction and which president was headed in the right direction.

View attachment 67117476

See how the Fascist president prior to 2009 inauguration was going in the wrong direction?
But Power, you are dishonest. Your selected graph does not tell the whole story, does it? Do you simply lack integrity?
 
But Power, you are dishonest. Your selected graph does not tell the whole story, does it? Do you simply lack integrity?

The graph was made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is not dishonest because the point of the graph is not to imply blame, but rather to show trends. The graph shows the beginning of the downward trend all the way up to present day. There is no reason to show anything else, but no one cares about what was going on before the downward trend began. It is only you who is putting any sort of partisan spin on the chart that makes you think it is dishonest.
 
He didn't make that graph, it came from bls.gov - so unless you are saying that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is lying and has no integrity, then you might want to relax a bit.. Have you even read this thread at all? Please, go back 5-6 pages to see where Conservative was using random data from any given point in time that he chose to prove a point. The point of that graph is to show trends, that's why it started where it did. Maybe you should try reading your book.

Intentionally misrepresenting another person's statistics is a Marxist thing to do, you damn Marxist DP poster.

Are you his mouthpiece? When he farts do you burp?

Did he select the graph, or didn't he? Did he intentionally misrepresent the data to make a point? If so he lacks integrity.

One of the (many) points of the books is that it is very easy to lie by doing exactly what Power did. He failed to show all of the numbers. He went for the dramatic flair instead of the truth. While Bush was president did the private sector create around 3 million jobs? Would you assume that from his graph?
 
Last edited:
But Power, you are dishonest. Your selected graph does not tell the whole story, does it? Do you simply lack integrity?

Private sector job growth was never that great during Bush43's tenure:

Instead, it is because job gains in the private sector were modest even after the economy recovered from the 2001 recession. In 2005, private sector employment rose 2 percent, the best annual growth rate during the Bush administration, but the rate fell to 1.4 percent in 2006 and 0.7 percent in 2007. In contrast, in six of the eight Clinton years growth was above 2 percent.
With the economy clearly slowing as the final year of Mr. Bush’s presidency begins, it is possible that the overall rate of growth in private sector employment for his presidency, now at 0.53 percent per year, could fall below the 0.41 percent rate of his father’s administration, which had been the lowest of any president since World War II.
The administration of Dwight Eisenhower currently ranks next to last in that regard, with a 0.50 percent annual rate of growth. It was damaged by a 1.8 percent decline in jobs in 1960, his final year in office, when a recession was one factor in his party’s loss of the White House.

Job Growth Where Bush Didn’t Want It - New York Times
 
Did you not post:

I think you are touch confused. You were talking to someone else about their sources. If you want my sources you'll find them in this post (Opposition to Obama grows - strongly). And unlike Conservative's, you'll find them exactly where I linked them. No hunting. No deception. Right there.

Pointing me to it?

Yes. But you are confusing me with whomever made the reagan stats comments. That wasn't me. As I stated above, the one link you couldn't get to it appears the NationalJournal.com website is down as a whole. When it comes up the link will work again. Sorry for not being the network administrator at that website or I would have it up and running for you immediately.
 
Hint: Its more than $25,000 a year. The top 1% I believe starts around $396,000.

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?


Perhaps I missed the part where you explained how the 3 planes hitting buildings (in an of itself) had any permanent effect on the markets. Please reference the post where you went into that.

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

It works the opposite of what has been done over the last 30 years, where taxes have been increased on the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. The only difference is that more progressive taxes allow greater stimulation of our consumer based economy, because more people have money to spend.

Ambigious.

If I had not personally witnessed the failure of trickle down economics for the last 30 years, you might be able to sell me on its continuation. Thanks, but no thanks!

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

I guess you need to understand the connection between wealth and power to see how the top 1% owning most of the wealth in the country does not allow an even playing field.

But...wealth is not taxed in this country. How will this pay for the increase in public employees?
 
Here's a better one: Is it more likely that someone who hadn't even taken office yet caused downward trends in every market (hell he hadn't even been elected when the downward trends started) or that a massive economic collapse in multiple different areas of the economy would cause that to happen?

I'll let you choose. I do admit, it was very unfortunate for Obama that he got elected right in the thick of things - the depression was already in full swing, and his entire presidency has been about trying to slowly drag the economy back up to par.
Once it was clear, in about October, that the Marxist stood a very good chance of being elected, why wouldn't successful people protect their businesses from the damage the Marxist said he intended to do to them? Why would they wait? Do you think sensible people would wait for the nemesis to actually seize power before starting the process of protecting themselves from the Marxist and his fellow-travelers, Reid and Pelosi?

I believe that the brightest figured it out and begin to shed the marginal jobs. This is the one term Marxist's doing. In my very humble opinion, of course. My intuition fits the data.
 
Are you his mouthpiece? When he fats do you burp?


Did he select the graph, or didn't he? Did he intentionally misrepresent the data to make a point? If so he lacks integrity.

One of the (many) points of the books is that it is very easy to lie by doing exactly what Power did. He failed to show all of the numbers. He wet for the dramatic flair instead of the truth. While Bush was president did the private sector create around 3 million jobs? Would you assume that from his graph?

You clearly have not read the thread. poweRob is not here to attack Bush, he is here defending Obama. Almost all of this thread has been a slander of Obama's numbers by a member named Conservative, who has said that Obama is responsible for the downturn of the economy. The point of his graph is to show the downturn began before Obama took office, and it has literally nothing to do with Bush. You are making this about Bush and the previous numbers, not him.
 
Sorry for not being the network administrator at that website or I would have it up and running for you immediately.

Your excuse in not acceptable.
 
The graph was made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is not dishonest because the point of the graph is not to imply blame, but rather to show trends. The graph shows the beginning of the downward trend all the way up to present day. There is no reason to show anything else, but no one cares about what was going on before the downward trend began. It is only you who is putting any sort of partisan spin on the chart that makes you think it is dishonest.
Now you know you can choose to show data one way or another. Some ways are dishonest. Others are less so. This was dishonest. It confounds intuition rather than informing it. It is a lie through omission of complete data.
 
Once it was clear, in about October, that the Marxist stood a very good chance of being elected, why wouldn't successful people protect their businesses from the damage the Marxist said he intended to do to them? Why would they wait? Do you think sensible people would wait for the nemesis to actually seize power before starting the process of protecting themselves from the Marxist and his fellow-travelers, Reid and Pelosi?

I believe that the brightest figured it out and begin to shed the marginal jobs. This is the one term Marxist's doing. In my very humble opinion, of course. My intuition fits the data.

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.
 
Now you know you can choose to show data one way or another. Some ways are dishonest. Others are less so. This was dishonest. It confounds intuition rather than informing it. It is a lie through omission of complete data.

What is the lie? How could that data lie? Data doesn't lie, only how you interpret it. Are you misinterpreting the data?
 
You clearly have not read the thread. poweRob is not here to attack Bush, he is here defending Obama. Almost all of this thread has been a slander of Obama's numbers by a member named Conservative, who has said that Obama is responsible for the downturn of the economy. The point of his graph is to show the downturn began before Obama took office, and it has literally nothing to do with Bush. You are making this about Bush and the previous numbers, not him.
A lie is a lie. Whether one is attacking Bush or defending Obama, if one's methods include shaving the data, misinforming through statistics, then one simply lacks integrity.
 
A lie is a lie. Whether one is attacking Bush or defending Obama, if one's methods include shaving the data, misinforming through statistics, then one simply lacks integrity.

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?
 
Yes. But you are confusing me with whomever made the reagan stats comments. That wasn't me. As I stated above, the one link you couldn't get to it appears the NationalJournal.com website is down as a whole. When it comes up the link will work again. Sorry for not being the network administrator at that website or I would have it up and running for you immediately.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom