Payrolls Climb as Jobless Rate Declines

Conservative said:

Do you think our founders would have supported a 4.1 trillion Dollar federal government and a 19 trillion dollar debt?

Click to expand...

Conservatives sure seem to since you all keep voting for it.

Funny how none of you cared about the debt when Bush was running it up with his war mongering, but as soon as the black man got there....

ThaiBoxer said:

Conservatives sure seem to since you all keep voting for it.

Funny how none of you cared about the debt when Bush was running it up with his war mongering, but as soon as the black man got there....

Click to expand...

You spout the liberal talking points well but ignore the reality, Bush left us a 4.9 trillion dollar debt or a total of 10.6 trillion on a 14.7 trillion dollar economy, since debt as a percentage of GDP is so important, what would that percentage be? Now we have a 19 trillion dollar debt on an 18 trillion dollar economy. Have you figured out yet how the left has misled you?

ThaiBoxer said:

It was liberals who founded this country. The idea that we should have a representative government where people had a say in who ran it instead of inherited thrones. Conservatives wanted to stay with the British. It was liberals who freed the slaves, fought for women's suffrage and civil rights. Conservatives have always opposed these things. Liberals have always been for progress.

Click to expand...

Rhetoric like this is what you get when you don't understand the labels you are using and allow partisanship to overcome reason.

OpportunityCost said:

Rhetoric like this is what you get when you don't understand the labels you are using and allow partisanship to overcome reason.

Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle.

I understand it perfectly. You guys are the ones who are brainwashed.

Conservative said:

I

What you post are opinions expressed by others whereas I post basic civics, political science, non partisan data to support my claims. Sorry but the 81-82 recession was much worse than this one but what you are looking at are the results of the policies implemented, Reagan's brought us out of the recession quickly, Obama's prolonged it As for tax cuts reducing revenue, the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented in 1983 after being passed in August 1981 and Bush's tax cuts were fully implemented in July 2003, please post Treasury data showing that loss in revenue?



Name for us the baggage Rubio brings to the WH. I would vote for anyone on that Republican ticket over Hillary. You can post all the articles you want but the 4.5 trillion increase in GDP, the 9 million jobs created until the Democrats took control of Congress, and the peace won in Iraq tells a different story




Your problem is you play in the minor leagues whereas I am in the majors where your partisanship is trumped by actual data not articles expressing the opinions of others. Before suggesting that I do work, give me the GDP growth under Bush from January 2001 to December 2008, give me the BLS numbers from January 2001 to December 2007 when the Democrats got their first budget through? It does seem that Bush is responsible not only for the poor economic results today, by the way I posted the charts you asked for and you ignored them, and he is responsible for the worst recovery in history



We know what you think but Obama has made Carter look good. That serious damage to our economy has been compounded by progressive economic policies of creating more dependence. The next president is going to have a bigger mess to clean up than Obama had as we were coming out of recession when Obama took office and we had a 10.6 trillion dollar debt that is now 19.0 trillion exceeding our annual GDP.

Progressive/liberal policies rely on low information voters and I know you are smarter than this so what drives you to the progressive agenda

Click to expand...

OK:

A - Opinions: Of course all of the posts I had were opinion pieces. But, they were EXPERT opinions that were presented to trump you LAY (lack of uncredentials) opinion. Every debate works on opinion; its the level of expertise behind the opinion that defines its relevance to an argument. In a trial, people are convicted or acquitted based upon EXPERT testimony. The EXPERTS always trump the lay opinion. I present experts to squash your ill-informed impressions. Curiously, you rarely counter any of my EXPERT opinions with experts of your own. You simply restate your original, often ill-informed lay opinion.

I found it particularly humorous the time I posted 85 PhDs in Economics telling us that the Stimulus worked and you felt that the counter argument of Conservative, the personnel manager from Houston, says no it didn't was a sufficient response. (hint: It wasn't even close --- but, as you pointed out, you play in the majors --- in your fantasy league)

In a real debate (or in a court of law, which is a real debate), if I present experts and you can not either successfully challenge the credentials of those experts --- you lose the debate. Something you really do not seem to grasp. When I present overwhelming expert opinion and you simply shout back the same thing, its like debating with an customer service auto-attendant.... In fact, you could save yourself a lot of typing if you simply asked me to Press 1 for "I have have the facts, I get my numbers from the BEA, Treasury, the BLS; Press 2 is for "what is it about liberals that refuse the facts and believe the rheotic"; Press 3 for "...... 9 Trillion of Debt".... 55,000 posts with 3 messages. Even Marco Roboto is in awe of you...

B - Low Information Voters - Cute to think one side relies on low information voters. This is either naive or disingenuous, but in your case I know your not naive. Both sides rely on low information voters to sell their 60 second sound bites. If we had voters that actually understood the issues; or even understood the issues to the level of the average DP poster, we would have a much different election process and PAC money would be irrelevant. Our whole election process, for both parties, depends on low information voters.

C - Rubio - After years of telling us how Obama had no experience and was not qualified, you can not support Rubio without being called a hypocrite. If I find you advocating for Rubio or Cruz, I will start posting links to your "Obama has no experience" posts.

ThaiBoxer said:

Pot meet kettle.

I understand it perfectly. You guys are the ones who are brainwashed.

Click to expand...

The liberals that formed the US and its constitution are not the same terminology as the liberals of today. That was my point, which you did not understand. Again your rhetoric doesn't match the facts.

upsideguy;1065543965]OK:

A - Opinions: Of course all of the posts I had were opinion pieces. But, they were EXPERT opinions that were presented to trump you LAY (lack of uncredentials) opinion. Every debate works on opinion; its the level of expertise behind the opinion that defines its relevance to an argument. In a trial, people are convicted or acquitted based upon EXPERT testimony. The EXPERTS always trump the lay opinion. I present experts to squash your ill-informed impressions. Curiously, you rarely counter any of my EXPERT opinions with experts of your own. You simply restate your original, often ill-informed lay opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes, all opinions have a bias which is why I use BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and Treasury data which doesn't seem to be prevalent in those so called expert opinions. A little dose of history, civics, and economics seems to be missing in a lot of those opinions

I found it particularly humorous the time I posted 85 PhDs in Economics telling us that the Stimulus worked and you felt that the counter argument of Conservative, the personnel manager from Houston, says no it didn't was a sufficient response. (hint: It wasn't even close --- but, as you pointed out, you play in the majors --- in your fantasy league)

Click to expand...

And yet I posted BLS data that showed it didn't. You have posted nothing to the contrary but others have picking another point in time long after the stimulus was signed to use as a starting point in showing jobs. Please post the actual data starting from February showing the stimulus worked. How can employment at 142 million going to 139 million two years later be called a success? Please provide for me any non partisan verifiable site that captures saved jobs?

In a real debate (or in a court of law, which is a real debate), if I present experts and you can not either successfully challenge the credentials of those experts --- you lose the debate. Something you really do not seem to grasp. When I present overwhelming expert opinion and you simply shout back the same thing, its like debating with an customer service auto-attendant.... In fact, you could save yourself a lot of typing if you simply asked me to Press 1 for "I have have the facts, I get my numbers from the BEA, Treasury, the BLS; Press 2 is for "what is it about liberals that refuse the facts and believe the rheotic"; Press 3 for "...... 9 Trillion of Debt".... 55,000 posts with 3 messages. Even Marco Roboto is in awe of you...

Click to expand...

Those so called experts would be challenged by presenting the data I presented and asking them to explain it. Why don't you try? Tell me how taking employment from 142 million to 139 million two years later can be called a success especially when the term shovel ready is ignored. The testimony of those so called experts would be destroyed just like I have destroyed your argument of a successful stimulus with actual data

B - Low Information Voters - Cute to think one side relies on low information voters. This is either naive or disingenuous, but in your case I know your not naive. Both sides rely on low information voters to sell their 60 second sound bites. If we had voters that actually understood the issues; or even understood the issues to the level of the average DP poster, we would have a much different election process and PAC money would be irrelevant. Our whole election process, for both parties, depends on low information voters.

Click to expand...

It is evident that those voters read headlines and buy rhetoric just like you and never verify what you are being told. I always thought you were better than this but apparently not. You have shown no indication that you understand the issues by the way you post. This is a private sector economy that reacted like it did to the Obama stimulus, poorly.

C - Rubio - After years of telling us how Obama had no experience and was not qualified, you can not support Rubio without being called a hypocrite. If I find you advocating for Rubio or Cruz, I will start posting links to your "Obama has no experience" posts.

Click to expand...

the choice may be Rubio vs. Clinton and the easy choice would be Rubio who doesn't have the baggage of Clinton. Nor Republican has the baggage of Clinton. Experience in your world seems to be positions held without positive accomplishments. Why would anyone support Hillary and ignore her true experience of telling people what they want to hear, dodging the truth, blaming everyone else, ignoring the problems, and being totally ignorant of reality?

Conservative said:

Yes, all opinions have a bias which is why I use BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and Treasury data which doesn't seem to be prevalent in those so called expert opinions. A little dose of history, civics, and economics seems to be missing in a lot of those opinions




And yet I posted BLS data that showed it didn't. You have posted nothing to the contrary but others have picking another point in time long after the stimulus was signed to use as a starting point in showing jobs. Please post the actual data starting from February showing the stimulus worked. How can employment at 142 million going to 139 million two years later be called a success? Please provide for me any non partisan verifiable site that captures saved jobs?



Those so called experts would be challenged by presenting the data I presented and asking them to explain it. Why don't you try? Tell me how taking employment from 142 million to 139 million two years later can be called a success especially when the term shovel ready is ignored. The testimony of those so called experts would be destroyed just like I have destroyed your argument of a successful stimulus with actual data




It is evident that those voters read headlines and buy rhetoric just like you and never verify what you are being told. I always thought you were better than this but apparently not. You have shown no indication that you understand the issues by the way you post. This is a private sector economy that reacted like it did to the Obama stimulus, poorly.



the choice may be Rubio vs. Clinton and the easy choice would be Rubio who doesn't have the baggage of Clinton. Nor Republican has the baggage of Clinton. Experience in your world seems to be positions held without positive accomplishments. Why would anyone support Hillary and ignore her true experience of telling people what they want to hear, dodging the truth, blaming everyone else, ignoring the problems, and being totally ignorant of reality?

Click to expand...

1. Interesting how you consistently fail to post my quote, yet you are so good at posting those of others. Are you hiding?

2. The experts consistently explain the numbers; its you that do not understand the numbers, because you never [want to] listen to the explanation. Let us see you post an expert opinion that actually agrees with your lay view of the world. Smart people listen to experts (never every expert); ignorant people turn their back on them. Again, in a real debate, when someone supports their position with experts and you can not come up with your own experts supporting your position OR present a prima facie case challenging the credentials of the experts, you lose. In a court of law if forensic experts show you did the deed and the best you can come up with is no I didn't, you going up the river.

3. If you don't think there are a ton of low information voters of both political persuations, you are again being ignorant or disingenuous. The only reason PACs and advertising is effective is because we have so many low information voters. Anyone that knows anything about politics, history and government can see throw any political ad.

4. Rubio v Clinton. You are a hypocrite. You owe apology to all Obama voters that voted for him because of political philosophy, when you are admonishing them for voting for such an inexperienced guy. Obama voters voted for him for the same reason you would support Rubio: political philosophy. Why are you not a fool for supporting an inexperienced guy as you said Obama voters were? Answer: because you are so incredibly inconsistent with your positions.... actually, you are not. The common thread of all your positions are Republicans Good; Democrats Bad. You should just say that lest you trip yourself up, as you always do, making this arguments that can so easily be used against you. I look forward to finding some of your posts on how inexperienced Obama was and using them next time you advocate for Rubio.

Conservative said:

Tell me how taking employment from 142 million to 139 million two years later can be called a success especially when the term shovel ready is ignored.

Click to expand...

Tell me how taking employment from 136 million (Jan 2010) to 149 million in 6 years with consistant job growth is pretty successful.

pinqy said:

Tell me how taking employment from 136 million (Jan 2010) to 149 million in 6 years with consistant job growth is pretty successful.

Click to expand...

First Obama had to take the employment down to 136 million from what he inherited 142 million and did so after that shovel ready stimulus bill was signed on February 2009 so NO I don't think that is successful at all. Further the employment was 146 million when the recession began so if you were in the private sector and spent 842 billion on a stimulus program and added 8.4 trillion to the debt in 7 years you would be fired!!