Again, Bush Faults others for his own Statements.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: jahawkin

And its the same as every other BS X.X million jobs created promise that has been made every few months for the past 4 years. Is the white house going to back off all those??

Promise != prediction.

I guess you went to school in Georgia, huh? It's okay, we understand.

Predictions are based on the way the numbers are lining up. "astrology"

As information becomes available, the basis for the numbers in the model changes and therefore so does the output.

Prediction: Dean would sweep the field because he had all the press - no one had the money to stand against him.
Fact: Money did not mean squat.
Result: Dean is out of the picture.

New prediction: Kerry would sweep up with Dean out of the picture
Fact: Edwards took a primary and came close in Wisconsin
Result: A race is on for now.

As the inputs change so does the result, which then leads to new interpretation and new predictions.
One can keep looking back and stub their foot on what is ahead. Predictions only are useful when there is accurate facts to back them up, logical history for the type of prediction and they are not intended to be self serving.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Ripped from another forum:

Bush: We have incontrovertible evidence that the moon is a terrorist-friendly nation. We will cease all trade with the moon, and troops will be landing any minute, with express orders to capture the leader of the moon people and bring him to justice.

Aide: psstpsstbzzbzzpss

Bush: Oh. IM NOT AN ASTRONOMER, LEAVE ME ALONE LETS ROLL

BINGO!

Are you neo-cons saying that its okay for Bush to predict flying cars during his administration as well?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: jahawkin
And its the same as every other BS X.X million jobs created promise that has been made every few months for the past 4 years. Is the white house going to back off all those??

Promise != prediction.

I guess you went to school in Georgia, huh? It's okay, we understand.

Predictions are based on the way the numbers are lining up. "astrology"

prediction

n 1: reasoning about the future [syn: anticipation, foresight] 2: a statement about the future [syn: foretelling, forecasting]

Predictions don't have to be made on any numbers. I could predict that alien space ships are going to land on Earth next week and I don't need any data to quantify that.

Dave & Co predicted that the Big 3 automakers are going to be out of business by the end of the year. Based on what information?? His own commi-wacko views, no doubt. Maybe you'll interpret his words to be a promise too.

Looks like the number of people that attended Georgia schools that post here is increasing exponetially.

 

[Gaard]

example of a prediction...

"We will find them."

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: jahawkin
And its the same as every other BS X.X million jobs created promise that has been made every few months for the past 4 years. Is the white house going to back off all those??

Promise != prediction.

I guess you went to school in Georgia, huh? It's okay, we understand.

Predictions are based on the way the numbers are lining up. "astrology"

prediction

n 1: reasoning about the future [syn: anticipation, foresight] 2: a statement about the future [syn: foretelling, forecasting]

Predictions don't have to be made on any numbers. I could predict that alien space ships are going to land on Earth next week and I don't need any data to quantify that.

Dave & Co predicted that the Big 3 automakers are going to be out of business by the end of the year. Based on what information?? His own commi-wacko views, no doubt. Maybe you'll interpret his words to be a promise too.

Looks like the number of people that attended Georgia schools that post here is increasing exponetially.

My use of prediction was in relation to the initial justification for the thread. The governemnt is using past information to plan/predict future events.
A valid prediction should be based on sonud justification.

As we know, sound justification does not exist/comprehend between Fla & Tenn.

Looks like the number of people that attended Georgia schools that post here is increasing exponetially.

Maybe there needs to be a way of filtering addresses for each forums?

I will admit that I have lived in Georgia - courtesy of Uncle Sam/USAF. Left there back to NE ASAP

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: jahawkin

And its the same as every other BS X.X million jobs created promise that has been made every few months for the past 4 years. Is the white house going to back off all those??

Promise != prediction.

I guess you went to school in Georgia, huh? It's okay, we understand.

Predictions are based on the way the numbers are lining up. "astrology"

As information becomes available, the basis for the numbers in the model changes and therefore so does the output.

I think that's where part of the problem lies. It seems that even the original predictions are not even being based on reality. Economists on all sides of the political spectrum are lambasting the White House Budget predictions, saying they appear to be wishful thinking rather than have a reasonable basis in fact.

This "prediction" has set out there for quite a while, and is just now being repudiated by the White House. I'm thinking it was because the White House hoped to get some positive spin out of this, but after it really received some critical review, has found it's a negative.

Also, as far as I see it, Bush has to take responsibility for these predictions, like it or not. These numbers come from the White House Budget Office, and if Bush can control anything, he ought to be able to control what comes out of his office. We know Bush isn't a statitician, and I don't think people expect him to be. However, I do think that Bush needs to have people in his White House Budget Office give predictions that can stand up to scrutiny, and not just wild guesses.

 

[tallest1]

"As president of the United States, I predict we will see flying cars, 99% efficient engines, and 0.5% unemployment. I predict that all evil will be vanquished and democracy will replace all communism and dictatorships on Earth. In fact, my intelligence tells me that we have the ability to do so. Our intelligence already knows the location of every WMD on Earth. Sooo vote for me in 2024!"

According to the neo-con's. I'm neither lying nor decieving. If you don't see something fundementally wrong with that, you're crazy.

 

[sandorski]

Even when Bush manages to use proper words, what he says is worthless.

 

[C'DaleRider]

Like I said in another thread, Bush sure did stand up with those darned "statistician's figures" when promoting the tax cuts and is still using them to push for the tax cuts becoming permanent; yet he won't stand behind what his own "number crunchers" are coming up with for job growth. Either you believe what they are saying or you don't.....you cannot use what you want when you want and ignore/hide from other figures the same guys come up with. But I suppose picking and choosing what you want to is just business as usual.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

My use of prediction was in relation to the initial justification for the thread. The governemnt is using past information to plan/predict future events.
A valid prediction should be based on sonud justification.

That is your opinion, but there is no basis for it. I prediction doesn't need to be quantified to be valid.

I could make a prediction that the world is going to end on Tuesday of next week. I don't need past information or any information to say that. What if I'm right? Then what???

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

This "prediction" has set out there for quite a while, and is just now being repudiated by the White House. I'm thinking it was because the White House hoped to get some positive spin out of this, but after it really received some critical review, has found it's a negative.

Especially since it was the media that came up with the 2.6 million number, this is even funnier. I swear people will blindly believe anything they hear on the nightly news.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Like I said in another thread, Bush sure did stand up with those darned "statistician's figures" when promoting the tax cuts and is still using them to push for the tax cuts becoming permanent; yet he won't stand behind what his own "number crunchers" are coming up with for job growth. Either you believe what they are saying or you don't.....you cannot use what you want when you want and ignore/hide from other figures the same guys come up with. But I suppose picking and choosing what you want to is just business as usual.

When you're the CEO or the head of a major organization, you don't have time to check the data of what your staff is doing. I know this is a foreign concept to everyone here, but if your economic advisor tells you based on their departments information that this is a likely outcome, then you go with what they say. If a CEO double checked every bit of information, then the world would quickly grind to a halt.

Why don't you get ahold of the "figures" and use your statistian knowledge to argue against it? Of course you can't, because you probably don't have a clue. That's expected from the commi-libs, if you don't understand something, it must be wrong. If the number is too big, it must be wrong. If Bush says it, it must be a lie. It's the same old thing over and over, yet none of you can tell me why the liberal media came up with this number that you're saying Bush created! Probably because Rather, Brokaw, Clinton, and Dave & Co told you that's what happened.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DanceMan

This "prediction" has set out there for quite a while, and is just now being repudiated by the White House. I'm thinking it was because the White House hoped to get some positive spin out of this, but after it really received some critical review, has found it's a negative.

Especially since it was the media that came up with the 2.6 million number, this is even funnier. I swear people will blindly believe anything they hear on the nightly news.

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
Like I said in another thread, Bush sure did stand up with those darned "statistician's figures" when promoting the tax cuts and is still using them to push for the tax cuts becoming permanent; yet he won't stand behind what his own "number crunchers" are coming up with for job growth. Either you believe what they are saying or you don't.....you cannot use what you want when you want and ignore/hide from other figures the same guys come up with. But I suppose picking and choosing what you want to is just business as usual.

When you're the CEO or the head of a major organization, you don't have time to check the data of what your staff is doing. I know this is a foreign concept to everyone here, but if your economic advisor tells you based on their departments information that this is a likely outcome, then you go with what they say. If a CEO double checked every bit of information, then the world would quickly grind to a halt.

Why don't you get ahold of the "figures" and use your statistian knowledge to argue against it? Of course you can't, because you probably don't have a clue. That's expected from the commi-libs, if you don't understand something, it must be wrong. If the number is too big, it must be wrong. If Bush says it, it must be a lie. It's the same old thing over and over, yet none of you can tell me why the liberal media came up with this number that you're saying Bush created! Probably because Rather, Brokaw, Clinton, and Dave & Co told you that's what happened.

Oh that's right, there isn't anyone unemployed, it's all in theor collective heads.

So what is the REAL number Mr AT Expert dirtboy??? The Country apparently including your Fearless Liar President are awaiting YOUR number. Is it zero?

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DanceMan

This "prediction" has set out there for quite a while, and is just now being repudiated by the White House. I'm thinking it was because the White House hoped to get some positive spin out of this, but after it really received some critical review, has found it's a negative.

Especially since it was the media that came up with the 2.6 million number, this is even funnier. I swear people will blindly believe anything they hear on the nightly news.

Dirtboy,

This was a quote from the above link...

The forecast of 2.6 million new jobs was contained in the annual Economic Report of the President, a 412-page volume of charts, graphs and text that predicted a bright economic future.

Now, how do you say this figure was determined by the media??

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DanceMan

This "prediction" has set out there for quite a while, and is just now being repudiated by the White House. I'm thinking it was because the White House hoped to get some positive spin out of this, but after it really received some critical review, has found it's a negative.

Especially since it was the media that came up with the 2.6 million number, this is even funnier. I swear people will blindly believe anything they hear on the nightly news.

Dirtboy,

This was a quote from the above link...

The forecast of 2.6 million new jobs was contained in the annual Economic Report of the President, a 412-page volume of charts, graphs and text that predicted a bright economic future.

Now, how do you say this figure was determined by the media??

wait wait wait. The LIBERAL media. And these whole thread with citations and statistics is a ad-hominum attack.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DanceMan

This "prediction" has set out there for quite a while, and is just now being repudiated by the White House. I'm thinking it was because the White House hoped to get some positive spin out of this, but after it really received some critical review, has found it's a negative.

Especially since it was the media that came up with the 2.6 million number, this is even funnier. I swear people will blindly believe anything they hear on the nightly news.

Dirtboy,

This was a quote from the above link...

The forecast of 2.6 million new jobs was contained in the annual Economic Report of the President, a 412-page volume of charts, graphs and text that predicted a bright economic future.

Now, how do you say this figure was determined by the media??

Last time I checked "Print" was Media. Take a look at the Liberal useage of Paper when Print is employed. An invention of the Liberal Media without a doubt!

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Oh that's right, there isn't anyone unemployed, it's all in theor collective heads.

So what is the REAL number Mr AT Expert dirtboy??? The Country apparently including your Fearless Liar President are awaiting YOUR number. Is it zero?

There are always people that are unemployed. There always have been and there always will be.

People are waiting for my numbers? Wow, I feel special.

Thanks for making my point. You can't prove or disprove the numbers. You just don't like Bush and you think someone else as President is going to magically make the unemployment rate zero. Whatever he says you don't like and whatever Kerry, Brokaw, Clinton, Rather or the nightly news says, you worship.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Dirtboy,

This was a quote from the above link...

The forecast of 2.6 million new jobs was contained in the annual Economic Report of the President, a 412-page volume of charts, graphs and text that predicted a bright economic future.

Now, how do you say this figure was determined by the media??

Where do you see this? In the Yahoo! article it said the report stated 3.8 million jobs and the media extrapolated 2.8 million based on other data (the same data that the 3.8 million jobs were extrapolated). Please provide a link...

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Dirtboy,

This was a quote from the above link...

The forecast of 2.6 million new jobs was contained in the annual Economic Report of the President, a 412-page volume of charts, graphs and text that predicted a bright economic future.

Now, how do you say this figure was determined by the media??

Where do you see this? In the Yahoo! article it said the report stated 3.8 million jobs and the media extrapolated 2.8 million based on other data (the same data that the 3.8 million jobs were extrapolated). Please provide a link...

As I stated above, the link that I referred to is the link that smashp started the thread with at the top of this page. If you look at that article, nowhere in the text is 3.8 million even mentioned.

However, you might be referring to a different article like this:


link (Washington Post, registration required)

that has this quote:

J. Bradford DeLong, a Clinton administration economist now at the University of California at Berkeley, said the Bush administration forecast is even more optimistic than it appears because it is based on year-average numbers. In fact, DeLong said on his Web site, the White House is assuming the economy will create 3.8 million jobs by the end of 2004.

Either way, you are incorrect in your statement that the media created the 2.6 million jobs figure. The media has only reported what was in the Economic Report of the President.

Finally, to drive the nail into the coffin as to why the White House looks duplicitous in this case:

Though McClellan said yesterday that Bush did not endorse the jobs forecast because he's "not a predictor," the president last year used a CEA jobs projection as evidence that his tax cut would add 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004. "That's the projection of a lot of smart economists who have analyzed the package," he said then.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Either way, you are incorrect in your statement that the media created the 2.6 million jobs figure. The media has only reported what was in the Economic Report of the President.

Sorry, not wrong. There is a different article on Yahoo! that I posted in another thread which says exactly what I have stated. I thought, without looking, that the link provided in this thread was the same one I provided in another. If you care to look that one up, you'll see what I'm saying is true to what was written in that article.

In the meantime, you know better than to post links that require registration.

 

[DanceMan]

After more research, here's the article that I think dirtboy quoted above:

From link

News organizations widely reported that the forecast implied a gain in jobs of 2.6 million. But because the employment levels provided by the White House are averages, the numbers actually imply a job gain of 3.8 million from the end of 2003 until the end of 2004.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan confirmed 3.8 million was a valid figure for the White House's jobs projection.

"That's what you get when you do the reverse calculation," she said. But Buchan said the 2.6 million figure was also accurate. "It's just a different way of looking at it," she said, saying both figures were valid.

The part in bold was not in the original quote by dirtboy, presumably because it would have undermined his assertion that the media created the 2.6 million jobs number.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Either way, you are incorrect in your statement that the media created the 2.6 million jobs figure. The media has only reported what was in the Economic Report of the President.

Sorry, not wrong. There is a different article on Yahoo! that I posted in another thread which says exactly what I have stated. I thought, without looking, that the link provided in this thread was the same one I provided in another. If you care to look that one up, you'll see what I'm saying is true to what was written in that article.

In the meantime, you know better than to post links that require registration.

No, you are wrong in your assertion that the media made up the figures. It's as plain as day. I just replied with the article you originally referred to, which still does not indicate or support your assertion that the media made up the job figures.

As for posting a link that requires registration, I was really trying to find the article that supported your statement, and that was the closest thing that I could. That's why I provided the quote. If there's any implied untrustworthiness in my quote, well, I can't convince you otherwise, but you can always register and see for yourself.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: DanceMan
After more research, here's the article that I think dirtboy quoted above:

From link

News organizations widely reported that the forecast implied a gain in jobs of 2.6 million. But because the employment levels provided by the White House are averages, the numbers actually imply a job gain of 3.8 million from the end of 2003 until the end of 2004.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan confirmed 3.8 million was a valid figure for the White House's jobs projection.

"That's what you get when you do the reverse calculation," she said. But Buchan said the 2.6 million figure was also accurate. "It's just a different way of looking at it," she said, saying both figures were valid.

The part in bold was not in the original quote by dirtboy, presumably because it would have undermined his assertion that the media created the 2.6 million jobs number.

Here's more that you left out from that article...

"The White House on Tuesday clarified its jobs forecast for 2004, saying it believes the economy will create around 3.8 million new jobs this year instead of the 2.6 million figure that had been widely cited by news organizations."

How can you undermind someone for what they said?

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: DanceMan
After more research, here's the article that I think dirtboy quoted above:

From link

News organizations widely reported that the forecast implied a gain in jobs of 2.6 million. But because the employment levels provided by the White House are averages, the numbers actually imply a job gain of 3.8 million from the end of 2003 until the end of 2004.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan confirmed 3.8 million was a valid figure for the White House's jobs projection.

"That's what you get when you do the reverse calculation," she said. But Buchan said the 2.6 million figure was also accurate. "It's just a different way of looking at it," she said, saying both figures were valid.

The part in bold was not in the original quote by dirtboy, presumably because it would have undermined his assertion that the media created the 2.6 million jobs number.

Here's more that you left out from that article...

"The White House on Tuesday clarified its jobs forecast for 2004, saying it believes the economy will create around 3.8 million new jobs this year instead of the 2.6 million figure that had been widely cited by news organizations."

How can you undermind someone for what they said?

Huh? I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence in your reply?

I didn't want to quote the whole article. There's nothing additional provided by the added information you quoted.

I also don't get your argument. Are you arguing that the media made up the lower figure, rather than use the higher figure? Then, this is a nonsensical argument. Why would you argue this?

It's clear from the White House spokesperson statements that both figures are correct. If you are saying that the media made up the 2.6 million jobs figure, then you're also implying that the White House is incorrect. But, according to the White House spokesperson, the 2.6 million figure is also correct. This is the classic contradiction.

So, you only have two choices as I see them:

1) The media made up the 2.6 million figure. Then, the White House either made theirs up too or the spokesperson lied, or was incorrect in her statement that the two numbers were both correct.

2) The media did not make up the 2.6 million figure. Then your assertion that the media made up the figure is incorrect, and should be retracted.

Which do you choose?

 

[MrYogi]

that is freaking hilarious. Why would he 'ok' it if he is not a statistician. Can a president of the country announce that every family will be getting $100,000 as bonus this year and then back away saying that he is not a statistician.

I am eagerly waiting for November when he gets out of his office.:|