• 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!

Economy Sheds 20,000 Jobs But Rate Drops to 9.7 Percent

apdst said:
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you post info from a well known Liberal economist who writes opeds for the NYT, bashing Bush all the way? That would be the same as using Rush, or Beck as primary source material...:rofl

Git real, girl!
Click to expand...

So you got nothing to actually argue against him except you don't like him. Not surprising at all. You also where more interested in my comments about spending out ofa recession, but of course you ignored that unhandy link.
 
apdst said:
I figgered you would post something credible. Looks like I way overestimated you.
Click to expand...

The day..... The ****ing day you come up with a more "credible" source will be one of celebration.

BTW, Krugman is quality all the way. Whether he is a democrat or republican does not play into his quantitative analysis. So......
 
Oh, gee! Damn, let me start using Rush and Glenn Beck as primary source material. That seems to be the new Liberal standard on the forum, now.


Why is Krugman credible? Because he says what you want to hear. That's why.

Now, Goldboy has shown that he's nothing more than a Libbo hack, too. Great jobs, kids!
:rofl
 
pugetsoundwa said:
The recession started under Clinton? Repub crowed that Bush ended the recession and that the economy was strong and vibrant........But erase 8 yrs of history if you want. Bush still gets a free pass from Repubs...amazing.
Click to expand...

So, what exactly did Bush do to **** up the economy? Please, use something more than an oped for your supporting material. Thaaaaanks!
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The day..... The ****ing day you come up with a more "credible" source will be one of celebration.

BTW, Krugman is quality all the way. Whether he is a democrat or republican does not play into his quantitative analysis. So......
Click to expand...

Krugman is nothing more than a partisan hack.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
The recession started under Clinton? Repub crowed that Bush ended the recession and that the economy was strong and vibrant........But erase 8 yrs of history if you want. Bush still gets a free pass from Repubs...amazing.
Click to expand...

It started after democrats got the majority back in 2007.
 
apdst said:
Oh, gee! Damn, let me start using Rush and Glenn Beck as primary source material. That seems to be the new Liberal standard on the forum, now.


Why is Krugman credible? Because he says what you want to hear. That's why.

Now, Goldboy has shown that he's nothing more than a Libbo hack, too. Great jobs, kids!
:rofl
Click to expand...

So you still got nothing to actually support your point of view, but you can't find any actual objection to the linked source material. Way to go there apdst.
 
If you don't like krugman you can look here:

Calculated Risk: Jobs and the Unemployment Rate

"The establishment survey showed a loss of 20,000 payroll jobs in January, but the household survey showed an increase in the employment level of 541,000."

or here:

Calculated Risk: Employment-Population Ratio, Part Time Workers, Temporary Workers

"A common question is: how could there be fewer payroll jobs, but the unemployment rate declined? This is because the data comes from two separate surveys. The unemployment Rate comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS: commonly called the household survey), a monthly survey of about 60,000 households.

The jobs number comes from Current Employment Statistics (CES: payroll survey), a sample of approximately 400,000 business establishments nationwide."
...
"The Employment-Population ratio ticked up slightly to 58.4% in January, after plunging since the start of the recession. This is about the same level as in 1983."
...
"The number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell from 9.2 to 8.3 million in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job."

or here:

Calculated Risk: Employment Report: 20K Jobs Lost, 9.7% Unemployment Rate

"The unemployment rate fell from 10.0 to 9.7 percent in January, and nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-20,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment fell in construction and in transportation and warehousing, while temporary help services and retail trade added jobs."
 
Yet I posted this post # 25 this tread


Yet yesterday we had this.

Jobless claims rise to 480,000 in latest week - Feb. 4, 2010


The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance rose last week, the government said Thursday.

There were 480,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Jan. 30, the Labor Department said in a weekly report. This is the highest level since Dec. 12 and up 8,000 from an upwardly revised 472,000 the previous week.


Economists were expecting claims to drop to 455,000, according to a consensus estimate from Briefing.com.

The 4-week moving average of initial claims was 468,750, up 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 457,000.



The drop in percent unemployed is due to those who have given up looking for a Job.
 
Redress said:
So you still got nothing to actually support your point of view, but you can't find any actual objection to the linked source material. Way to go there apdst.
Click to expand...

You bet, sis! It's all good. You hid it for a long time, but we all see where you're coming from, now.

I'm sure you won't mind when I use Bill O'Reilly as primary source documentation in the future...:rofl
 
apdst said:
So, what exactly did Bush do to **** up the economy? Please, use something more than an oped for your supporting material. Thaaaaanks!
Click to expand...


He failed to push for the reforms the Democrats were blocking that could have blunted the edge of the looming disaster.

Other than that, Bush vs the Socialist Banking Disaster looks almost exactly like King Canute ordering the tide to go away.
 
ptif219 said:
It started after democrats got the majority back in 2007.
Click to expand...

It STARTED with FDR and the FHA.

Things got worse over time.

Carter's CRA.

Clinton's CRA II.

The empowerment of a racist organization to sue banks claiming racism if the bank didn't lend money to people who couldn't pay it back.

Clinton signing the Republican sponsored bill that removed the block on residential lending banks from playing with the big boys in the commercial banking side.

Barney Frank getting hot over a (male) teller's ass and blocking reform legislation under Bush.

Most of the blame is on the Democrats for flat out disobeying the Constitution, some, not much adheres to the Republican RINO squads.
 
All hail Barney Frank most powerfull man in America

Able to push legislatation agains the will of a Rebulican congress, senate and presidency.

Instead of pretending with the charade, just announce him as dictator as he so clearly must be to be responsible for the destruction of the US economy
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
All hail Barney Frank most powerfull man in America

Able to push legislatation agains the will of a Rebulican congress, senate and presidency.

Instead of pretending with the charade, just announce him as dictator as he so clearly must be to be responsible for the destruction of the US economy
Click to expand...

Where did anyone claim he pushed legislation through?
 
Strucky said:
Where did anyone claim he pushed legislation through?
Click to expand...

Well he must have done it, in order to cause the collapse correct


If all he did was block something, it means the reason for the collapse was enacted before him
 
Strucky said:
Correct,those have also been posted.
Click to expand...

Yep the CRA which, had no teeth, and was enacted in 76 but didnt destroy the US housing market for 27 years, the sneaky little devil
 
apdst said:
You bet, sis! It's all good. You hid it for a long time, but we all see where you're coming from, now.

I'm sure you won't mind when I use Bill O'Reilly as primary source documentation in the future...:rofl
Click to expand...

And if you do, I bet I can find something more than just "it's Bill O'reilly, so I am going to ignore it". I don't wuss out on backing up my claims.
 
Redress said:
And if you do, I bet I can find something more than just "it's Bill O'reilly, so I am going to ignore it". I don't wuss out on backing up my claims.
Click to expand...

Too late, you just did. I'm sure it comes as no surpris to most here. You fooled quit a few people for along time on this forum. But, the cat's out of the bag, now, so it's all good.

Paul Krugman!...:rofl That's brilliant!
 
apdst said:
Too late, you just did. I'm sure it comes as no surpris to most here. You fooled quit a few people for along time on this forum. But, the cat's out of the bag, now, so it's all good.

Paul Krugman!...:rofl That's brilliant!
Click to expand...

The difference between Krugman, Rush, Bill, and Sean is quite apparent. One is of the most renowned economists on this planet, and the other three are media personalities. One is a tenured economics professor at one of the most prestigious universities on the planet, the other three.... Well you get the idea.

What you have to do is find a right of center economist with the credentials equal to Krugman to offer a quality counter point. This can be done rather easily, but do not expect me to do your research for you. Besides, you really do not want to know what a right of center economist would say. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Too late, you just did. I'm sure it comes as no surpris to most here. You fooled quit a few people for along time on this forum. But, the cat's out of the bag, now, so it's all good.

Paul Krugman!...:rofl That's brilliant!
Click to expand...

Actually Krugman, if you've ever taken the time to read some of his articles, isn't always left or right. He has on many occasions infuriated quite a few liberals with his opinions. They used to carry his editorial pieces in our local paper but they dropped him about a year ago. So I haven't kept up with him since.

Now if all you ever do is listen to the right wing pundits then your opinion of Krugman will be based solely on that. And as usual there are two sides to every issue.
 
apdst said:
Too late, you just did. I'm sure it comes as no surpris to most here. You fooled quit a few people for along time on this forum. But, the cat's out of the bag, now, so it's all good.

Paul Krugman!...:rofl That's brilliant!
Click to expand...

I know this is complicated, but I will give it a shot any way. Maybe you can manage to comprehend. I backed up my claim with sources. You, instead of taking the time to counter anything, just stuck your fingers in your ear and went "NAH NAH NAH NAH", and then bitched about one of the sources, ignoring the one that you primarily asked for. Why? Because you have nothing, nothing at all. Ad hominem is not an argument, it's avoiding arguing your point.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The difference between Krugman, Rush, Bill, and Sean is quite apparent. One is of the most renowned economists on this planet, and the other three are media personalities. One is a tenured economics professor at one of the most prestigious universities on the planet, the other three.... Well you get the idea.

What you have to do is find a right of center economist with the credentials equal to Krugman to offer a quality counter point. This can be done rather easily, but do not expect me to do your research for you. Besides, you really do not want to know what a right of center economist would say. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Krugman is no more credible than Beck, or Rush.

You don't prove a point by posting an opinion piece written by a partisan hack.

You're only bragging about Krugman, because he's a Liberal and says what you want to hear.
 
apdst said:
Krugman is no more credible than Beck, or Rush.

You don't prove a point by posting an opinion piece written by a partisan hack.

You're only bragging about Krugman, because he's a Liberal and says what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

Prove he is not credible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom