Try harder, junior. You need to step up to the plate with a little more substance. That kind of response may have worked on the jr. high debate team, but it doesn't work here.
Run along, now.
Try harder, junior. You need to step up to the plate with a little more substance. That kind of response may have worked on the jr. high debate team, but it doesn't work here.
Run along, now.
ummm, I'm substancially more wealthy because of it. And you can't argue with our explosive economic growth nor can you argue the historical facts of what tax cuts do to stimulate growth.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Hey, I am just trying to give you props man. Keep running with that ball, even Bush tries to pull it out once in a while until his handlers get him back under control.
That's great but this doesn't apply to most Americans, you know that 90% who work for a living.
Maybe you can't but afaik there is no consensus among those actually qualified to analyze the economy.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Yes, well that's reasonable if you believe:
Bush knew of the impending 9/11 terrorist attackes and did nothing to stop it, or he, in fact, orchastratied it.
Bush knew that all the world's intellegence agencies were mistaken about their assessment of of Saddam's WMD program and "bad intentions" but lied about it to take us unnecessarily into war with an "innocent" country.
The whole (real) purpose of the war was to enrich themselves and their friends.
Each and every conservative is ver rich and completley corrupt.
When a conservative's/republican's lips are moving it means he/she is lying
Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism in any way, ever.
Oops, can't finish the list. Gotta go back to work.
The question is, is such a "fact set" reasonable?
Fern
The BLS numbers havent moved more than ~2 points in either direction in a decade.
Currently we are .2% points lower than this time in 1996.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO...l=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000
Have there been any changes in the definition of unemployment?
The concepts and definitions underlying the labor force data have been modified, but not substantially altered, even though they have been under almost continuous review by interagency governmental groups, congressional committees, and private groups since the inception of the Current Population Survey.
In January 1994, a major redesign of the Current Population Survey was introduced which included a complete revamping of the questionnaire, the use of computer-assisted interviewing for the entire survey, and revisions to some of the labor force concepts.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques4
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Where the hell do you get 12 years from?
Bush has only been President for 6.
If you are stating that every thing that has gone wrong with the country in the past 12 years is based on the Republican control of congress. Then I guess we should also give that congress all the credit for the balanced budgets it passed.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Make up your fricken mind, did they change methods or not? Make a claim, and then say you verifiy that claim? Doesn't that make your whole argument pointless?
Prove that they changed their method, or shut up about it. I have yet to see NO evidence that the method they use is any different than what was used under Clinton.
I highly doubt anyone will ever change the method, because if the change resulted in lower figures the press would raise holy hell about them "fixing" the figures.
Why not? I don't think R's, in general, are bad people. (I could be wrong, but I don't think anybody has said that) Yeah, some of them are, just like some D's are bad people, but not everything they touch turns to crap. Not everything D's touch turns to gold. It's just that I, along with a few million other folk, feel that their ideology is wrong. Does that make me a bad person? An enemy? I guess if everybody in the country had the same thoughts as hellokeith, the USA would be better?
I understand the need to defend the head of your party. What I don't understand is the blind following, and the inability to say that your party's leader has messed up. Heck, many posters on here absolutely refuse to say or admit to any error on Bush's part.
BTW, can I start a thread titled "R's on this forum seem quite dense"?
I understand the need to defend the head of your party. What I don't understand is the blind following, and the inability to say that your party's leader has messed up. Heck, many posters on here absolutely refuse to say or admit to any error on Bush's part.
BTW, can I start a thread titled "R's on this forum seem quite dense"?
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
In order to make you happy I thought I would respond to your post.
How about this from a 9-14-06 article by the AP "Even with the increase, the new foreclosure figure is still low by historical standards and thus not overly worrisome to lenders. But it suggests that some borrowers are feeling pinched. " Link
Please post me a link that shows the numbers any where near what you claim. First it was "all time high" then it became "1930" next it will be "2001"
One article is all I ask for, good luck finding it, I tried
The "teaching the tests" argument goes round and round. However, if we don't grade results via tests how do we know what kids are learning and if they are learning at the rate they should be? Now the teachers unions are opposed to ANY type of testing, even testing of teachers to see if they are qualified.
As far as the intelligent design thing you posted, don't try to cloud the issue by bringing up the one or two school districts in the country that have tried this crap, and if I believe right in every case they ID people have lost to the evolution people.
As I said, on health care, education and Social Security the Democrats have not introduced one workable plan to solve any of the problems we face. If I am wrong all you have to do is find a link to one plan suggested by them that would actually work.
1. Foreclosure rates: In Cali the rate hit a 4 1/2 year high. So much for 1930's type figures huh?
How about this from a 9-14-06 article by the AP "Even with the increase, the new foreclosure figure is still low by historical standards and thus not overly worrisome to lenders. But it suggests that some borrowers are feeling pinched. " Link
Please post me a link that shows the numbers any where near what you claim. First it was "all time high" then it became "1930" next it will be "2001"
One article is all I ask for, good luck finding it, I tried
Already talked about that to death, post some proof of your "actual rate" claim and how that rate is different than under Clinton
My sister in-law is a teacher and we have talked about this bill a little bit.
The "teaching the tests" argument goes round and round. However, if we don't grade results via tests how do we know what kids are learning and if they are learning at the rate they should be? Now the teachers unions are opposed to ANY type of testing, even testing of teachers to see if they are qualified.
As far as the intelligent design thing you posted, don't try to cloud the issue by bringing up the one or two school districts in the country that have tried this crap, and if I believe right in every case they ID people have lost to the evolution people.
Like I said, NO ONE has created any kind of plan that will solve the problem. The only working solution is a privatization plan. Otherwise there is no way to come up with the $27 trillion dollars more in expenditures the system will need, in excess of the money it takes in, over the next 75 years. That figure comes from the Social Security Administration itself.
I love this one. The Hillary plan was voted down 99-0 I believe. You notice I said "workable" proposal. A plan that loses 99-0 is not a workable plan.
As I said, on health care, education and Social Security the Democrats have not introduced one workable plan to solve any of the problems we face. If I am wrong all you have to do is find a link to one plan suggested by them that would actually work.
Uhh...did you miss the parts where Foley blamed his pedophilia on being molested by a priest (news to everyone) and then later on alcoholism (again, news to everyone)? That's not taking responsibility. That's blaming someone or something else for his criminal behavior.
There's a good reason for this (and all other political boards) to be filled with Bush-bashing.
33% approval.
all the Bush tax cuts have done is worsen the deficit and make the rich richer and expand the gap between the rich and the rest of America.
Except they don't. They help increase the overall economic growth, but as has happened over the last five years -- there has been no growth in actual income.
The argument is so asinine. "I'm making more money, so clearly they work!" Actual figures say you're dead wrong.
Irrationality is like insanity. It's realitive.
Somebody who hates what Bush is doing to the country, the economy, has every reason to loathe the man. He mucked up the whole damn country, we're broke, health care cost are off the friggin charts, we mired down in a war nobody supports anymore, the vast majority of the country don't feel we're any safer then we were before we invaded Iraq, and Bush doesn't even have the damn guts to fire Rummy? What's up with that?? We've just been spinning our wheels for 6 years
I say to you that we "libs" don't have an irrational hate of Bush, but rahter that you have an irrational love of him.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
My apologies, I thought you actually had some clue what you were talking about. I should have realized you're just mindlessly parroting the talking points.
BLS has two distinct measures related to employment, their Employment stats, i.e., the number of employed, and their Unemployment stats, i.e., the percentage of people looking for work. They have materially changed their Employment methodology (in Jan'03 or '04, don't remember which), causing an almost 1 million increase in the number of jobs reported. They apparently have NOT materially changed their Unemployment methodology. You refered to both stats in your post. I therefore addressed both in my reply.
Kiss my you-know-what. If you truly doubt the veracity of my claim, I've given you two ways to check it. You can check the earlier threads, or you can go direct to BLS and read the notes accompanying the 1/03 and 1/04 Employment reports. Of course I suppose remaining ignorant is an option too. The choice is yours.
"Have yet to see NO"?
By the way, I love the way you evade the substance of my post by fixating on this particular nit. I even said in my initial reply that the methodology change may or may not be relevent to your claim about adding 6.6 million jobs. What you're evading are the things we do know, that the August, 2003 date was cherry-picked to make the number as big as possible, that it is even then barely above break-even due to workforce growth, that it is nowhere near enough to fill the 6 million+ job hole left during Bush's first term, and that the quality of these new jobs are not as good as the jobs lost.
Here, let me just paste in the whole section again, since you somehow deleted it when you posted your ?:09 "response" above:
- The "6.6 million jobs" added is equally deceptive. First, it ignores the number of jobs lost during Bush's first term. (The selection of Aug 2003 as the starting point is no coincidence, it is another example of cherry-picking statistics to deceive.) Second, it ignores the normal growth in the labor force. Roughly 150,000 additional jobs are needed each month just to break even with growth. That means we needed about 5.7 million new jobs since Aug 2003 just to keep up with growth. The net gain is a paltry million or so jobs -- much better than nothing, but nowhere near enough to fill the 6+ million job hole left in Bush's first term.
Finally, it ignores the fact that most of these new jobs are not as good as the jobs they replace. The salary and benefits are inferior. In many cases, part-time jobs have replaced full-time jobs. When I last researched this, there was roughly a 50% increase in part-time employment, accounting for the vast majority of new jobs created at the time. This is all documented in an old thread here.
(One other note, the Bush administration BLS instituted a new methodolgy for counting employment, magically adding almost one million phantom jobs to its count. I don't remember, however, whether this went in in January, 2003, or January, 2004, so I don't know if it's part of the "6.6 million" claim or not. In any case, I documented this in the same thread mentioned above.)
Yes, one would think the so-called "liberal" media would have been all over it, yet somehow ...
Of course, you don't need my approval or blessing. But to be technically correct, my topic is about liberals in this forum, not necessarily Democrats. My mother has been and always will be a lifelong Democrat, but she is reasonably far from being a liberal. Also, my inquiry was about the extreme anger of the forum libs, which is not necessarily bad and is a point of discussion, whereas your suggested topic is an insult.
This is the meat here. Most of the forum libs get extremely angry and immediately start insulting.
Using the term "Lib" in a pejorative manner is in itself insulting. So you come in here and insult people and then express your profound shock when they respond in kind. Strutting around like a damned rooster all the time claiming you own the SC because of Bush's additions to the court doesn't do your "I'm a perfectly reasonable intellectual who simply wants to have a nice dialogue..." story any good either. Frankly, your drawling condecension and feigned gentility makes my skin crawl. So yeah, as a "Lib", I'd have to say, I do feel a rather irrational stirring of negativity toward you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter