• 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.
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.

Said it sounds like and after meeting thousands and working in the business world for 35 years, that is my opinion
 
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

Thanks for the numbers and the link. If you have read what I wrote in the past, you'll see that I agree that unemployment is one of our worst issues in the economy today. However, I do not think you've given Obama a fair cut at lowering it. From bls.gov:
1981: 7.6% (when he took office, the economy was heading into the second half of a double-dip recession)
1982: 9.7% (this is the bottom of the double dip)
1983: 9.6% (from here things start getting better)
1984: 7.4% (Unemployment began a strong trend downward)

--------------------------------------

2008: 5.8%
2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
Current: 9.1%

If, within a year, Obama is able to trend unemployment down to around 7%, will you support the job he has done with the economy?
 
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.

So now opinions must be PC, or is that only Conservative opinions?

j-mac
 
So now opinions must be PC, or is that only Conservative opinions?

j-mac

Who said PC? I think it would be dumb to call anyone a idiot that I have never met (not only someone that I have not met but know absolutely zero about), let alone a doctor. What does that have to do with political correctness, rather than political hackness? Keep in mind, the only thing Conservative knows about this person is that she teaches Actuarial Science at a University and he called her a stupid liberal.

You support that?
 
Last edited:
Who said PC? I think it would be dumb to call anyone a idiot that I have never met (not only someone that I have not met but know absolutely zero about), let alone a doctor. What does that have to do with political correctness, rather than political hackness? Keep in mind, the only thing Conservative knows about this person is that she teaches Actuarial Science at a University and he called her a stupid liberal.

You support that?

I don't know, is she? Maybe he has met her I don't know....But I do find it rather enlightening that you seem to place emphasis on the academic pedigree, and am left wondering if that acceptance of thought would also apply to a conservative PhD who says the opposite of what you agree with ideologically?

j-mac
 
I don't know, is she? Maybe he has met her I don't know....But I do find it rather enlightening that you seem to place emphasis on the academic pedigree, and am left wondering if that acceptance of thought would also apply to a conservative PhD who says the opposite of what you agree with ideologically?

j-mac

I am convinced now that you didn't read the thread. Let me sum up what happened real quick:

Conservative: "Is that what they are teaching you in school these days?"
Me: "This is what I am learning these days: *Posted Actuary Math problem*"
Conservative: "That has nothing to do with Obama. Ask your professor to explain Obama's numbers if she has a clue"
Me: "She has a clue, she's a genius"
Conservative: "Sounds like another book smart street stupid liberal"

Are you caught up yet? Maybe read the thread first. And, yes, I think anyone with a PhD deserves respect (except maybe that guy on the History Channel that is always talking about aliens building the pyramids). We call them Dr. for a reason.
 
I am convinced now that you didn't read the thread. Let me sum up what happened real quick:

Conservative: "Is that what they are teaching you in school these days?"
Me: "This is what I am learning these days: *Posted Actuary Math problem*"
Conservative: "That has nothing to do with Obama. Ask your professor to explain Obama's numbers if she has a clue"
Me: "She has a clue, she's a genius"
Conservative: "Sounds like another book smart street stupid liberal"

Are you caught up yet? Maybe read the thread first. And, yes, I think anyone with a PhD deserves respect (except maybe that guy on the History Channel that is always talking about aliens building the pyramids). We call them Dr. for a reason.

Um, ok, so Conservative (whom btw is probably the most personally attacked member of this board) decides to give a little razzing back, and that ruffles your feathers because this is your professor, and you think she is a genius....Yet, you still failed to lay out how she explains Obama's numbers. That would have been more on point instead of going down the road of derailment in favor of personal attack.

IN any case, I prefer the common mans explanation of PhD, which usually in my experience, stands for Piled high and Deep....heh, heh....

j-mac
 
Last edited:
Um, ok, so Conservative (whom btw is probably the most personally attacked member of this board) decides to give a little razzing back, and that ruffles your feathers because this is your professor, and you think she is a genius....Yet, you still failed to lay out how she explains Obama's numbers. That would have been more on point instead of going down the road of derailment in favor of personal attack.

IN any case, I prefer the common mans explanation of PhD, which usually in my experience, stands for Piled high and Deep....heh, heh....

j-mac

Well if Conservative would learn how to read statistics and learn basic math (he can't even double numbers correctly) then he wouldn't be "attacked." he also needs to stop copying and pasting his numbers which have been disproven.

So you don't prefer PhDs? Because high levels of education is bad? Are you intimidated?
 
Um, ok, so Conservative (whom btw is probably the most personally attacked member of this board) decides to give a little razzing back, and that ruffles your feathers because this is your professor, and you think she is a genius....Yet, you still failed to lay out how she explains Obama's numbers. That would have been more on point instead of going down the road of derailment in favor of personal attack.

IN any case, I prefer the common mans explanation of PhD, which usually in my experience, stands for Piled high and Deep....heh, heh....

j-mac

I have to explain every detail of every little thing to you people. She teaches Actuary Math - that has nothing to do with Obama. She does not teach anything related to politics. She teaches me how to find spot rates, how to calculate varying annuities by hand, how to predict when someone is going to die, and how to decide the Actuarial present value of a life insurance policy. What that has to do with this conversation, I do not know - Conservative brought it up and brought her into it.

Do I think she's a genius? Yes. She wanted to start up an Actuarial program so she started studying on her own and is 5/5 on passing tests - P/1, FM/2, C, MLC, and MFE. Look up the passing rate on those five tests and you tell me.

*Edit to add:

And really, you are a conservative who doesn't appreciate science and doctorates? You don't say? Oh wait, that's the base of the republican party - and it explains why all of you listen to Rush Limbaugh. :doh
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the numbers and the link. If you have read what I wrote in the past, you'll see that I agree that unemployment is one of our worst issues in the economy today. However, I do not think you've given Obama a fair cut at lowering it. From bls.gov:
1981: 7.6% (when he took office, the economy was heading into the second half of a double-dip recession)
1982: 9.7% (this is the bottom of the double dip)
1983: 9.6% (from here things start getting better)
1984: 7.4% (Unemployment began a strong trend downward)

--------------------------------------

2008: 5.8%
2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
Current: 9.1%

If, within a year, Obama is able to trend unemployment down to around 7%, will you support the job he has done with the economy?

It is all about economic policy and direction from this Administration and none of it is pro growth, pro individual wealth creation, pro free enterprise and thus destined for failure and why we have the results today vs the results someone got during economic difficulties similar to these. I will never support his style of economic policies and won't have to worry about every supporting him. He is an ideologue who doesn't have a clue how our economy works. Like far too many he hasn't held a real job thus doesn't understand how damaging his policies are for real people.
 
Last edited:
I have to explain every detail of every little thing to you people. She teaches Actuary Math - that has nothing to do with Obama. She does not teach anything related to politics. She teaches me how to find spot rates, how to calculate varying annuities by hand, how to predict when someone is going to die, and how to decide the Actuarial present value of a life insurance policy. What that has to do with this conversation, I do not know - Conservative brought it up and brought her into it.

Do I think she's a genius? Yes. She wanted to start up an Actuarial program so she started studying on her own and is 5/5 on passing tests - P/1, FM/2, C, MLC, and MFE. Look up the passing rate on those five tests and you tell me.

*Edit to add:

And really, you are a conservative who doesn't appreciate science and doctorates? You don't say? Oh wait, that's the base of the republican party - and it explains why all of you listen to Rush Limbaugh. :doh

ME fricken OW honey...put the claws away would you? Look, you don't think that an Actuary mathematician could have anything interesting to say on, oh, I don't know, SS, Medicare, Obamacare, the debt, the deficit, long term trends on these things and more?

Also, it isn't that I don't like PhD's, I am not one that likes people that think just because they have these alphabet designators behind their name, and are highly educated are better, or smarter than others that don't...I might not have a degree in anything, but I have lived life, and learned alot. But if you want to bow to academia that is fine for you. I tend to put more credence in those that have done, rather than those that hypothesize.

j-mac
 
I have to explain every detail of every little thing to you people. She teaches Actuary Math - that has nothing to do with Obama. She does not teach anything related to politics. She teaches me how to find spot rates, how to calculate varying annuities by hand, how to predict when someone is going to die, and how to decide the Actuarial present value of a life insurance policy. What that has to do with this conversation, I do not know - Conservative brought it up and brought her into it.

Do I think she's a genius? Yes. She wanted to start up an Actuarial program so she started studying on her own and is 5/5 on passing tests - P/1, FM/2, C, MLC, and MFE. Look up the passing rate on those five tests and you tell me.

*Edit to add:

And really, you are a conservative who doesn't appreciate science and doctorates? You don't say? Oh wait, that's the base of the republican party - and it explains why all of you listen to Rush Limbaugh. :doh

You need to get out in the real world before forming your opinions on the success or failure of numbers and economic policy. You see it is about what someone accomplishes instead of what someone knows. What exactly has your professor accomplished that is of value to the world? How many jobs has your professor created? What has she addded to the GDP? If you are an example of one of her accomplishments then the jury is still out on whether or not that is a good or bad result.

I have a college degree and spent 35 years on the street thus have book and street smarts. I actually created jobs, actually recognized and promoted people making them better than they were, I actually generated results for my community and the charities I support. I employed well over 1200 employees, hired and fired people, paid local, state and federal taxes. I worked hard, raised a very successful family and quite frankly I don't like being demonized by a community agitator or liberal college kids who believe theory is reality and reality only exists when it conforms to that theory.

I have what is called book smarts and street smarts. When you get both you will have some credibility but in the meantime your book smarts has generated nothing nor has the Obama theories
 
Last edited:
You need to get out in the real world before forming your opinions on the success or failure of numbers and economic policy. You see it is about what someone accomplishes instead of what someone knows. What exactly has your professor accomplished that is of value to the world? How many jobs has your professor created? What has she addded to the GDP? If you are an example of one of her accomplishments then the jury is still out on whether or not that is a good or bad result.

I have a college degree and spent 35 years on the street thus have book and street smarts. I actually created jobs, actually recognized and promoted people making them better than they were, I actually generated results for my community and the charities I support. I employed well over 1200 employees, hired and fired people, paid local, state and federal taxes. I worked hard, raised a very successful family and quite frankly I don't like being demonized by a community agitator or liberal college kids who believe theory is reality and reality only exists when it conforms to that theory.

I have what is called book smarts and street smarts. When you get both you will have some credibility but in the meantime your book smarts has generated nothing nor has the Obama theories

You have book smarts and you can't understand adjusting for inflation or cumulative data? Look, I am not going to argue with a guy who has 30 years of outside sales about outside sales. That would be dumb. But you aren't that guy. You don't have 30 years of experience studying economic data and you clearly don't have the book smarts either. I don't know what kind of business you are in and I don't care, but you're right, when it comes to that business, there is not much I could argue with you about it - nor would I try. But just because you are older doesn't make you smarter, nor better informed than I am in the realm of politics or economics.

So don't try to pull some nonsense seniority on me like I am going to just bow out and go away. If you want me to go away, you'll have to actually prove you know something and win through logical arguments. Until then, you can keep posting bunk data and I'll keep providing the correct context for it.

It is all about economic policy and direction from this Administration and none of it is pro growth, pro individual wealth creation, pro free enterprise and thus destined for failure and why we have the results today vs the results someone got during economic difficulties similar to these. I will never support his style of economic policies and won't have to worry about every supporting him. He is an ideologue who doesn't have a clue how our economy works. Like far too many he hasn't held a real job thus doesn't understand how damaging his policies are for real people.

So you don't care about the numbers then? Why are you posting data if the data does not matter to you? Why not just say "I am a republican and he is a democrat so I will not only never vote for him but I will never support him". That would be far more honest than the front that you put on this thread where you pretend to understand numbers and care about them. Clearly you don't, because every time I provide context (such as unemployment took 3 years under Reagan to stabilize and Obama has not had that much time) you change the subject.
 
Last edited:
ME fricken OW honey...put the claws away would you? Look, you don't think that an Actuary mathematician could have anything interesting to say on, oh, I don't know, SS, Medicare, Obamacare, the debt, the deficit, long term trends on these things and more?

Also, it isn't that I don't like PhD's, I am not one that likes people that think just because they have these alphabet designators behind their name, and are highly educated are better, or smarter than others that don't...I might not have a degree in anything, but I have lived life, and learned alot. But if you want to bow to academia that is fine for you. I tend to put more credence in those that have done, rather than those that hypothesize.

j-mac

No, I don't think she'd like to discuss politics or have much of an opinion on them. As far as respect for the title of PhD, it's funny you'd say you don't have much respect for them considering the conservative mantra that hard-working people are better than everyone else, and there no is better measure of hard work than attaining a PhD. All a PhD says is "this person has spent thousands of hours looking at one topic and knows a lot about it". It doesn't mean they are right or better, it is conservatives who seem to like to put the tag of "better" and "worse" onto people, but that the person in question is knowledgeable on the subject.

Comparing experience to a PhD is difficult, because they are rarely in the same field. Yeah, you and Conservative have lived life and gained experience, but that doesn't mean you can argue with someone who has a PhD is Biomechanics. The two do not mesh. On the same token, just because Conservative has run a small business for many years, that does not make him able to read economic data or argue policy. Does anyone know more about how to run his business? No, probably not many, but I don't see anyone here arguing with him about that.

And yes, anyone who points out the obvious logical flaws in your argument (and your inability to even read 1 page of the thread before commenting) is clearly "catty".
 
Last edited:
Comparing experience to a PhD is difficult, because they are rarely in the same field. Yeah, you and Conservative have lived life and gained experience, but that doesn't mean you can argue with someone who has a PhD is Biomechanics. The two do not mesh. On the same token, just because Conservative has run a small business for many years, that does not make him able to read economic data or argue policy. Does anyone know more about how to run his business? No, probably not many, but I don't see anyone here arguing with him about that.

And yes, anyone who points out the obvious logical flaws in your argument (and your inability to even read 1 page of the thread before commenting) is clearly "catty".

He was in human resources for a corporation.
 
You have book smarts and you can't understand adjusting for inflation or cumulative data? Look, I am not going to argue with a guy who has 30 years of outside sales about outside sales. That would be dumb. But you aren't that guy. You don't have 30 years of experience studying economic data and you clearly don't have the book smarts either. I don't know what kind of business you are in and I don't care, but you're right, when it comes to that business, there is not much I could argue with you about it - nor would I try. But just because you are older doesn't make you smarter, nor better informed than I am in the realm of politics or economics.

So don't try to pull some nonsense seniority on me like I am going to just bow out and go away. If you want me to go away, you'll have to actually prove you know something and win through logical arguments. Until then, you can keep posting bunk data and I'll keep providing the correct context for it.



So you don't care about the numbers then? Why are you posting data if the data does not matter to you? Why not just say "I am a republican and he is a democrat so I will not only never vote for him but I will never support him". That would be far more honest than the front that you put on this thread where you pretend to understand numbers and care about them. Clearly you don't, because every time I provide context (such as unemployment took 3 years under Reagan to stabilize and Obama has not had that much time) you change the subject.

Explain to me why 1985 dollars adjusted to 2005 prices had any affect on the people in 1985? The issue is jobs and economic growth. 1985 dollars created 17 million jobs so again tell me how you adjust jobs in 1985 created by 1985 revenue and expenses for inflation?

It didn't take Reagan 3 years to stabilize unemployment at all AFTER his economic plan was implemented which was October 1981. Why is it you believe that Reagan had any impact after taking office on the economy when he didn't have a Republican Congress passing his economic policy? When was the Obama economic policy put into place? Guess your textbooks didn't tell you the answer.
 
Explain to me why 1985 dollars adjusted to 2005 prices had any affect on the people in 1985? The issue is jobs and economic growth. 1985 dollars created 17 million jobs so again tell me how you adjust jobs in 1985 created by 1985 revenue and expenses for inflation?

Inflation only needs to be adjusted when comparing money from different years. It has nothing to do with the people, but the relationship of the growth of money. It's like putting $10 in a bank and coming back in 20 years and you have $20. You didn't add money to the bank, you just accrued interest (it inflated), but unless you removed the interest, it would look like you deposited money. The same is true with GDP. In one year, it can be 200 and in the next it could be 203, but in reality, GDP could have actually fallen in real dollars. Here is a formula:

Real Interest Rate
Real Interest Rate = Nominal Interest Rate − Expected Inflation

The above is a very key concept. But actually, it doesn't matter. Obama's not-adjusted-for-inflation numbers are actually good as well (as I showed you a few posts up), it only matters when you post unadjusted numbers for Reagan, and then switch to adjusted numbers for Obama. Then it's not fair. But the unadjusted numbers are essentially meaningless when discussing GDP growth.

As far as job growth in unemployment? It is preferable to put them into percentages because population grows as well (which is kind of similar to inflation for dollars). 20 million unemployed today is not the same as 20 million unemployed in 1985. However, 9% unemployed today is the same as 9% unemployed in 1985.

It didn't take Reagan 3 years to stabilize unemployment at all AFTER his economic plan was implemented which was October 1981. Why is it you believe that Reagan had any impact after taking office on the economy when he didn't have a Republican Congress passing his economic policy? When was the Obama economic policy put into place? Guess your textbooks didn't tell you the answer.

So Reagan's policy went into effect in Oct 1981 and the numbers were what? Then, when did the numbers become acceptable to you? How long was that period? Next, when did Obama's policy take effect? What number will be acceptable and how does he have to achieve that number?

Can you answer those questions for me?
 
Last edited:
Inflation only needs to be adjusted when comparing money from different years. It has nothing to do with the people, but the relationship of the growth of money. It's like putting $10 in a bank and coming back in 20 years and you have $20. You didn't add money to the bank, you just accrued interest (it inflated), but unless you removed the interest, it would look like you deposited money. The same is true with GDP. In one year, it can be 200 and in the next it could be 203, but in reality, GDP could have actually fallen in real dollars. Here is a formula:

Real Interest Rate
Real Interest Rate = Nominal Interest Rate − Expected Inflation

The above is a very key concept. But actually, it doesn't matter. Obama's not-adjusted-for-inflation numbers are actually good as well (as I showed you a few posts up), it only matters when you post unadjusted numbers for Reagan, and then switch to adjusted numbers for Obama. Then it's not fair. But the unadjusted numbers are essentially meaningless when discussing GDP growth.

Right, and that is the point, we aren't comparing money between years we are comparing employment and unemployment between years generated by the money at that time. You seem to have a problem understanding that. Obama's numbers are irrelevant since he has lost jobs and Reagan increased jobs, that should explain to you exactly what happened but because your book hasn't given you the answer you cannot figure it out yourself.
 
Right, and that is the point, we aren't comparing money between years we are comparing employment and unemployment between years generated by the money at that time. You seem to have a problem understanding that. Obama's numbers are irrelevant since he has lost jobs and Reagan increased jobs, that should explain to you exactly what happened but because your book hasn't given you the answer you cannot figure it out yourself.

I do not know why you keep thinking I have some textbook. Like I ever read a textbook anyway.

------------

So you are somehow trying to murk the water by combining GDP not adjusted for inflation with the number of people not employed? Why not just use the unemployment percentages and inflation adjusted numbers? They speak for themselves. I am not following your point as GDP growth and unemployment are completely separate categories.

Just use the unemployment percentages when comparing them to older numbers and use inflation-adjusted GDP numbers when comparing them to older years. That will make your life a thousand times easier and your numbers will always be in context.
 
I do not know why you keep thinking I have some textbook. Like I ever read a textbook anyway.

------------

So you are somehow trying to murk the water by combining GDP not adjusted for inflation with the number of people not employed? Why not just use the unemployment percentages and inflation adjusted numbers? They speak for themselves. I am not following your point as GDP growth and unemployment are completely separate categories.

Just use the unemployment percentages when comparing them to older numbers and use inflation-adjusted GDP numbers when comparing them to older years. That will make your life a thousand times easier and your numbers will always be in context.

Do you know what GDP is? What is really important about GDP and when you figure that out wonder if you can also then figure out why GDP adjusted for inflation is really irrelevant except to make one side or the other feel good. Get back to me with the answer. Unemployment percentages? What does that serve? Think a 9.1% unemployment on a labor force of 154 million is better than a 10% unemployment rate on a labor force of 100 million? You really need to think before buying the rhetoric you are being told.

I asked you to explain the context to me for the Obama results as well as the numbers you have posted? What relevance are they for today?
 
Right, and that is the point, we aren't comparing money between years we are comparing employment and unemployment between years generated by the money at that time. You seem to have a problem understanding that. Obama's numbers are irrelevant since he has lost jobs and Reagan increased jobs, that should explain to you exactly what happened but because your book hasn't given you the answer you cannot figure it out yourself.

Reagan's unemployment rate


1981-01-01 7.5 1981-02-01 7.4 1981-03-01 7.4 1981-04-01 7.2 1981-05-01 7.5 1981-06-01 7.5 1981-07-01 7.2 1981-08-01 7.4 1981-09-01 7.6 1981-10-01 7.9 1981-11-01 8.3 1981-12-01 8.5 1982-01-01 8.6 1982-02-01 8.9 1982-03-01 9.0 1982-04-01 9.3 1982-05-01 9.4 1982-06-01 9.6 1982-07-01 9.8 1982-08-01 9.8 1982-09-01 10.1 1982-10-01 10.4 1982-11-01 10.8 1982-12-01 10.8 1983-01-01 10.4 1983-02-01 10.4 1983-03-01 10.3 1983-04-01 10.2 1983-05-01 10.1 1983-06-01 10.1 1983-07-01 9.4 1983-08-01 9.5 1983-09-01 9.2 1983-10-01 8.8

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom