• 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!

US Job Market Loses Steam

Boo Radley said:
Nothing. It is what it is, a polling service. You have difficulty finding out factual things by opinion.

Did you read all I wrote?
Click to expand...

Yep sure did....Not the first time you have said that, or something equally as inane.....;)


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yep sure did....Not the first time you have said that, or something equally as inane.....;)


j-mac
Click to expand...

J, this is just a fact. You cannot discover factual information through opinion. A majority can be and often is wrong. It worrys me that you don't know this.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, this is just a fact. You cannot discover factual information through opinion. A majority can be and often is wrong. It worrys me that you don't know this.
Click to expand...

What opinion? They asked what the person's current employment was and whether or not they wanted to work full time.
 
phattonez said:
What's wrong with Gallup? They weren't measuring opinion here, just the facts about someone's current situation.
Click to expand...

No, they were asking people they phoned about their situation. This has limited ability to give us actual factual numbers. Again, I don't doubt the number is high, but don't think Gallup is the best source for this information. This is a minor thing, really.
 
phattonez said:
What opinion? They asked what the person's current employment was and whether or not they wanted to work full time.
Click to expand...

Yes, they asked, and we have to accept they are truthful and there are no other variables. We can't really consider that fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
J, this is just a fact. You cannot discover factual information through opinion. A majority can be and often is wrong. It worrys me that you don't know this.
Click to expand...


It doesn't keep you up nights does it? Look, I am a truck driver, you're a community collage teaching assistant, neither of us is going to solve the worlds problems single handedly. However, we both have our opinions, and it is purely stunning to me that you can sit there and type assumptions about how my opinion is formed knowing virtually nothing about me other than what you know of me here in cyber space. Now the same could be said of what I know of you as well, but, wouldn't that cancel out both of our assumptions? Bottom line is you need not worry that someone doesn't think exactly like you do so the world is doomed, or that those that have differing opinions are somehow less informed, or less caring about this country's course than you. That is sophistry. What makes this country work is the differing opinions, and approaches even though those held by liberals are severely damaging, and horrific for the country long term, we need that to remind us of what is right....So never change Joe, you are a shinning example.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, they asked, and we have to accept they are truthful and there are no other variables. We can't really consider that fact.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to lie about it.
 
Middleground said:
Not humongous???

chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif
Click to expand...

This chart is useless for the point at hand. This chart is support for someone's attempt to show that the deficits under Obama are Bush's fault. It has nothing to do with with whether or not the tax cuts were "humongous." It has to do with someone's desire to blame things on Bush. (And besides, WHO compiled it, and what methodology did they use? This looks like a joke.)

Point of fact, of the various marginal rates which were reduced by the Bush tax cuts, they ran from a reduction of 2% to a reduction of 3.6% at the top brackets. 3.6% is "humongous"?

No, "humongous" is dropping from 91% to 65% (JFK) or 65% to 50% then to 29% (Reagan). Dropping from 38.6% to 35% (Bush)? Slight change.
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
How do you know if they were due to the tax cuts?
Click to expand...

I never said they were.

You said:

Middleground said:
Show me where these humongous cuts to the wealthy have affected jobs. The trickle down has not seemed to work one iota.
Click to expand...

Correlation never implies causality, but it never excludes it, either. In the face of job growth, how do you make such a declarative statement?


These people don't seem to think they helped much:
Click to expand...

1) These are figures from sometime in 2005. There was much story left to be told.

2) They never bothered to check to see if the jobs actually created were indeed the ones claimed to have been created in the sources they cite. If they're correct, all the jobs created were in defense or in support. That's plainly not what actually happened.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
There's no reason to lie about it.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? My wife always says she wants more hours, but she really doesn't. Again, I don't dispute that too many are underemployed, and only state that I would prefer a better source. Polls have limitations, nothing more than that.
 
j-mac said:
It doesn't keep you up nights does it? Look, I am a truck driver, you're a community collage teaching assistant, neither of us is going to solve the worlds problems single handedly. However, we both have our opinions, and it is purely stunning to me that you can sit there and type assumptions about how my opinion is formed knowing virtually nothing about me other than what you know of me here in cyber space. Now the same could be said of what I know of you as well, but, wouldn't that cancel out both of our assumptions? Bottom line is you need not worry that someone doesn't think exactly like you do so the world is doomed, or that those that have differing opinions are somehow less informed, or less caring about this country's course than you. That is sophistry. What makes this country work is the differing opinions, and approaches even though those held by liberals are severely damaging, and horrific for the country long term, we need that to remind us of what is right....So never change Joe, you are a shinning example.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Ummm, you didn't get my job right. Just thought you should know. ;)


And J, I do have a pretty good feel for you. How many years have we been conversing? You clearly buy into the "liberal" nonsense magazines like The American (non) Thinker put out. You spew it constantly. You're free to do so, and I'm free not to think much of it. Such is the nature of things.

But, more importantly, you cannot decide factual thinks buy polling, by opinion. This is important.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you sure? My wife always says she wants more hours, but she really doesn't.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.....And everyone is like your wife?


Again, I don't dispute that too many are underemployed, and only state that I would prefer a better source.
Click to expand...


And what figures would you like to see? Lay it out Joe instead of tap dancing around leaving yourself these ambiguous outs to use later to shift position. State something equivocally for a change.

Polls have limitations, nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

So do opinions Joe, yours is no different.


j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
Ummm, you didn't get my job right. Just thought you should know. ;)


And J, I do have a pretty good feel for you. How many years have we been conversing? You clearly buy into the "liberal" nonsense magazines like The American (non) Thinker put out. You spew it constantly. You're free to do so, and I'm free not to think much of it. Such is the nature of things.

But, more importantly, you cannot decide factual thinks buy polling, by opinion. This is important.
Click to expand...

Again never change Joe.....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm.....And everyone is like your wife?
Click to expand...

Of course not. You miss the point. The fact is we can't know how many are or aren't. We simply cannot know.





And what figures would you like to see? Lay it out Joe instead of tap dancing around leaving yourself these ambiguous outs to use later to shift position. State something equivocally for a change.
Click to expand...

J, something not dependent on the trutfulness of respondents. Something measurable, verifiable. Why do you think this is controvestial?

So do opinions Joe, yours is no different.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Agreed, opions have limitations. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Of course not. You miss the point. The fact is we can't know how many are or aren't. We simply cannot know.
Click to expand...


Sure we can....WE CAN POLL THEM!!!!


J, something not dependent on the trutfulness of respondents. Something measurable, verifiable. Why do you think this is controvestial?
Click to expand...

Never said it was, I am just trying to get you to say what you will accept in regards to this. But as usual, and nothing different with this answer, even under a direct plea for you to take a position that can be debated, you tap dance around it so that later you can say you didn't say something. That is not only a frustrating way for you to debate, but it shows a rather stunning lack of confidence in your own position.

Agreed, opions have limitations. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have ever disagreed on that. However, it would be nice if you would debate honestly, instead of this cat/mouse game you so love.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Sure we can....WE CAN POLL THEM!!!!
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, we cannot know their truefulness. We somply can't know. Sorry, but you're wrong on this.


Never said it was, I am just trying to get you to say what you will accept in regards to this. But as usual, and nothing different with this answer, even under a direct plea for you to take a position that can be debated, you tap dance around it so that later you can say you didn't say something. That is not only a frustrating way for you to debate, but it shows a rather stunning lack of confidence in your own position.
Click to expand...

I answered you, read slowly: J, something not dependent on the trutfulness of respondents. Something measurable, verifiable.


I don't think we have ever disagreed on that. However, it would be nice if you would debate honestly, instead of this cat/mouse game you so love.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I sadly think by honestly you mean dishonestly. You want absolutes and yes and nos when a complete answer calls for more. You want to play gottcha more than you want to understand, which is common on boards such as these. Sadly.
 
Harshaw said:
This chart is useless for the point at hand. This chart is support for someone's attempt to show that the deficits under Obama are Bush's fault. It has nothing to do with with whether or not the tax cuts were "humongous." It has to do with someone's desire to blame things on Bush. (And besides, WHO compiled it, and what methodology did they use? This looks like a joke.)

Point of fact, of the various marginal rates which were reduced by the Bush tax cuts, they ran from a reduction of 2% to a reduction of 3.6% at the top brackets. 3.6% is "humongous"?

No, "humongous" is dropping from 91% to 65% (JFK) or 65% to 50% then to 29% (Reagan). Dropping from 38.6% to 35% (Bush)? Slight change.
Click to expand...

I love how you change the goal post. I said the cuts were humongous, and you said they were not that bad. I then cite a source with actual numbers, and -- of course-- you attack the source. Instead, I want you to tell me that it's untrue that the tax cuts run deeper than the funding of the Iraq-Afghanistan war in itself. I look at the chart and see the implications of the cuts. The tax cuts on the wealthy alone would more than fund the wars at present. Do you not think that's humongous? Do you have anything that disputes that? Don't change the goal posts. Just give me factual numbers that disputes this and I will read.
 
Middleground said:
I love how you change the goal post. I said the cuts were humongous, and you said they were not that bad. I then cite a source with actual numbers, and -- of course-- you attack the source. Instead, I want you to tell me that it's untrue that the tax cuts run deeper than the funding of the Iraq-Afghanistan war in itself. I look at the chart and see the implications of the cuts. The tax cuts on the wealthy alone would more than fund the wars at present. Do you not think that's humongous? Do you have anything that disputes that? Don't change the goal posts. Just give me factual numbers that disputes this and I will read.
Click to expand...

What "goal posts" did I change? Be specific. Explain it in detail. What exactly did I change or revise about anything I posted to "change the goal posts"?

You think a rate reduction of 3.6% is "humongous"?

If you want to whine about "changing goal posts," how about this little gem from you?

Instead, I want you to tell me that it's untrue that the tax cuts run deeper than the funding of the Iraq-Afghanistan war in itself.
Click to expand...

I never made any claims of any kind having anything to do with that comparison, at any point, in any way, shape, or form -- and neither did you, so until now, it hasn't even been a topic for discussion. This is something you pulled out of thin air.

No, the rate cuts were not humongous. They were slight. How they stack up relative a spending line-item is irrelevant. That's a spending issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't be silly, we cannot know their truefulness. We somply can't know. Sorry, but you're wrong on this.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see, so if the data collected by polls contradicts what you want the narrative to be then the participants must be lying....Very good, very scientific....


I answered you, read slowly: J, something not dependent on the trutfulness of respondents. Something measurable, verifiable
Click to expand...


No, no you didn't, but I'll play.....Measurable, and verifiable such as.....?


I sadly think by honestly you mean dishonestly.
Click to expand...

Sadly you assume again, that more often than not makes you wrong.


You want absolutes and yes and nos when a complete answer calls for more.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh yes, the grey area of nuance....The scoundrels cloud.


You want to play gottcha more than you want to understand, which is common on boards such as these. Sadly.
Click to expand...

Yep, and most of it for the past decade has been used by liberals like yourself against Bush, now all of the sudden it is off limits....How convenient....:roll:


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh, I see, so if the data collected by polls contradicts what you want the narrative to be then the participants must be lying....Very good, very scientific....
Click to expand...

Being silly again. 1 st, I don't disgaree. 2nd, all I've said is that we can't know. Really radical stuff.


No, no you didn't, but I'll play.....Measurable, and verifiable such as.....?
Click to expand...

As no one I kow has found a way to this, I don't know. But that would be the standard. If you look, you'll find the government recognizes the problem, but notes the difficulty in measuring. I can'tmake up something not done.




Sadly you assume again, that more often than not makes you wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong word. I assess. ;)


Ahhhh yes, the grey area of nuance....The scoundrels cloud.
Click to expand...

No, honesty. Few things are yes and no or black and white. Nauance is the sign of a well thoughtout approach.


Yep, and most of it for the past decade has been used by liberals like yourself against Bush, now all of the sudden it is off limits....How convenient....:roll:


j-mac
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing I have said is different for either.
 
Boo Radley said:
Being silly again. 1 st, I don't disgaree. 2nd, all I've said is that we can't know. Really radical stuff.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse we can know....Just don't believe your lyin' eyes, right?


As no one I kow has found a way to this, I don't know. But that would be the standard. If you look, you'll find the government recognizes the problem, but notes the difficulty in measuring. I can'tmake up something not done.
Click to expand...

WOW! This is really dumb. You don't know, yet you denounce figures, and facts you don't like....As far as the government recognizing the problem...Are you serious? You think they are going to say that their out of control spending has failed? Good one....


Wrong word. I assess.
Click to expand...

Maybe the root word.


No, honesty. Few things are yes and no or black and white. Nauance is the sign of a well thoughtout approach.
Click to expand...


That is the problem with liberalism Joe, there is no decisiveness only nuance, and consensus. This is a weak form of leadership, and probably the No 1 reason that liberals can't hold power for long. That and their corruption ofcourse.


I have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing I have said is different for either.
Click to expand...

Yeah right...:roll: Whatever dude....Tell yourself what ever lie you wish.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ofcourse we can know....Just don't believe your lyin' eyes, right?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry J, but we really can't.


WOW! This is really dumb. You don't know, yet you denounce figures, and facts you don't like....As far as the government recognizing the problem...Are you serious? You think they are going to say that their out of control spending has failed? Good one....
Click to expand...

I recognize the difficulty in knowing, and that we don't have a verifiable measure. You're just not listening.




That is the problem with liberalism Joe, there is no decisiveness only nuance, and consensus. This is a weak form of leadership, and probably the No 1 reason that liberals can't hold power for long. That and their corruption ofcourse.
Click to expand...

Remember what I said earlier when I assessed you and your "liberal" silliness, right out of American (non)Thinker? Well, there you go again. ;) :lamo
 
Deuce said:
When the government was hiring, conservatives pointed out that the private sector was the important factor. Now it's not?
Click to expand...

the important factor is the state of our economy

it's bad

and it's not getting better

get it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom