djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:29:45 GMT -5
America doesn't- the GOP is not going to win with a 'conservative' - at least not the far right type that the term has been modified to refer to.Republicans don't seem to understand that the RINOs they insult are their best chance of winning the white house. You're right. I forgot Bush 41, who is famous for calling Reaganomics "voodoo economics" got re-elected in 1992 after compromising with Democrats. Oh, wait- no, he didn't. He got beat. was W a "real conservative", Paul?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:31:27 GMT -5
And then there's the fact that we could nominate Barney Frank in the GOP and by the time the general election rolled around, you'd have him painted as someone to the right of Attila the Hun. By the time the general rolled around he would be to the right of Attila the Hun. In order to get nominated a candidate has to swing way to the right in order to appeal to the evangelical base. The democratic candidate has to swing way to the left and appeal to the commies. They both spend the general tacking back to the middle and trying to convince us that they aren't nut jobs, while also trying not to piss off the whackadoodles on the fringes too much. This is the mythology. But it wasn't true of Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama who are, in fact, far left. explain to me how Obama is more left than Reagan.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 11:33:17 GMT -5
"Nevermind the seasonal adjustment- the raw numbers are that 2.9 million people lost their jobs in the last 30 days..." Paul, these would be jobs that were gained ahead of the Christmas season. If they were counted as gains at that time but not counted as losses now, you'd have a point. But seasonal adjustment goes both ways. precisely. some people ONLY work during the Christmas season. that doesn't make them full time employees in November, and it doesn't make them unemployed in February. it is a choice that they are making, and it grossly distorts figures if we don't treat them as just what they are: 1-2 month seasonal workers.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Feb 4, 2012 12:38:37 GMT -5
Bottom line....if we continue to get nearly a quarter million new jobs created a month and weekly unemployment claims numbers continue to fall the rest of the unemployment picture will improve.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Feb 4, 2012 12:44:24 GMT -5
and he will win with a landslide.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Feb 4, 2012 13:05:43 GMT -5
and he will win with a landslide. If the economy continues to improve, he will. He received 53.3% in 2008, also a landslide. What Democratic President received a bigger %?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 14:09:37 GMT -5
and he will win with a landslide. If the economy continues to improve, he will. He received 53.3% in 2008, also a landslide. What Democratic President received a bigger %? it has been a good long while, usa.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 19:16:14 GMT -5
Bottom line....if we continue to get nearly a quarter million new jobs created a month and weekly unemployment claims numbers continue to fall the rest of the unemployment picture will improve. We've been over this. The unemployment percentage is low because the number of participants in the labor force is at a 30 year low.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 19:23:20 GMT -5
In other words, if you reduce the labor participation down to a single individual, and that individual has a job, you could say that unemployment is at 0% even though everyone would clearly know that the country has stalled economically. Obama is betting people are going to buy the government's unemployment number and ignore the details. He's probably right. But that dozen make it any less cynical.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 4, 2012 19:37:02 GMT -5
In other words, if you reduce the labor participation down to a single individual, and that individual has a job, you could say that unemployment is at 0% even though everyone would clearly know that the country has stalled economically. Obama is betting people are going to buy the government's unemployment number and ignore the details. He's probably right. But that dozen make it any less cynical. But all of us forum members here on P&M are much more informed then the general public.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 4, 2012 19:50:32 GMT -5
One thing is for sure- no matter what data may show if it is positive for Obama the right wing is going to attack the numbers anyway they can. They ALWAYS have an explanation for numbers that disagree with their view- it reminds me of the health care debate and our various rankings- all of them obviously flawed since they paint a different picture than they do- but find one that they agree with and it is solid gold. As another poster stated- they have manufactured their own reality and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that. You have people like Rush that know next to nothing about statistics attacking the methodologies- and before you know it everyone in that camp is calmly making the same arguments casually dismissing rsearch by people that actually know what they are doing. Thanks to these folks now Obama is viewed (by some) as far left and Reagan is a true conservative- now that's funny!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2012 21:44:07 GMT -5
One thing is for sure- no matter what data may show if it is positive for Obama the right wing is going to attack the numbers anyway they can. They ALWAYS have an explanation for numbers that disagree with their view- it reminds me of the health care debate and our various rankings- all of them obviously flawed since they paint a different picture than they do- but find one that they agree with and it is solid gold. As another poster stated- they have manufactured their own reality and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that. You have people like Rush that know next to nothing about statistics attacking the methodologies- and before you know it everyone in that camp is calmly making the same arguments casually dismissing rsearch by people that actually know what they are doing. Thanks to these folks now Obama is viewed (by some) as far left and Reagan is a true conservative- now that's funny! Actually, every single argument against ObamaCare was correct.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 22:03:26 GMT -5
One thing is for sure- no matter what data may show if it is positive for Obama the right wing is going to attack the numbers anyway they can. They ALWAYS have an explanation for numbers that disagree with their view- it reminds me of the health care debate and our various rankings- all of them obviously flawed since they paint a different picture than they do- but find one that they agree with and it is solid gold. As another poster stated- they have manufactured their own reality and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that. You have people like Rush that know next to nothing about statistics attacking the methodologies- and before you know it everyone in that camp is calmly making the same arguments casually dismissing rsearch by people that actually know what they are doing. Thanks to these folks now Obama is viewed (by some) as far left and Reagan is a true conservative- now that's funny! Actually, every single argument against ObamaCare was correct. the first argument is that it is a government takeover of medical care. that one is completely false.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 4, 2012 22:06:16 GMT -5
One thing is for sure- no matter what data may show if it is positive for Obama the right wing is going to attack the numbers anyway they can. They ALWAYS have an explanation for numbers that disagree with their view- it reminds me of the health care debate and our various rankings- all of them obviously flawed since they paint a different picture than they do- but find one that they agree with and it is solid gold. As another poster stated- they have manufactured their own reality and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that. You have people like Rush that know next to nothing about statistics attacking the methodologies- and before you know it everyone in that camp is calmly making the same arguments casually dismissing rsearch by people that actually know what they are doing. Thanks to these folks now Obama is viewed (by some) as far left and Reagan is a true conservative- now that's funny! i wonder what they will do when unemployment falls to 4%
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 4, 2012 22:24:58 GMT -5
i wonder what they will do when unemployment falls to 4% They are already working on it- they have arguments ready for any good news that may come down and an alternate explanation for it. And like clockwork it will spread through their little network and be repeated ad nauseum as the real truth.
|
|
vandalshandle
Senior Member
Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump...
Joined: Oct 12, 2011 20:34:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,005
|
Post by vandalshandle on Feb 4, 2012 22:26:38 GMT -5
"i wonder what they will (say) when unemployment falls to 4%" ______________________________________________
First, that the figure was false, because Obama had the fix in with whatever department is responsible for those statistics. Second, that it is so low because Obama was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts. Third, that global warming is fake. Fourth, that Obama care is going to destroy the country. Fifth, that Obama is a socialist, commie, gay Muslim with terrorist connections, and Sixth, whatever Rush Limbaugh and Ron Paul are ranting about during that week.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 4, 2012 22:47:57 GMT -5
Actually, every single argument against ObamaCare was correct. In your opinion- but that wasn't the point. The point was when confronted by statistics such as administrative costs, outcomes, access to care, or even our #37 ranking when compared to other countries, every one was attacked on the basis of flawed methodology and then coupled with a few good horror stories about long wait times or some similar bullshit. Manufactured reality is what it is. You folks can't even argue the merits- oh no- you have to discredit the data before the conversation begins- which boils down to why even have the conversation at all since everything is just fine.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 4, 2012 23:29:33 GMT -5
The reason people like you indicate that RINOs are electable in spite of all the evidence to the contrary is that deep down, you know they're not.
I never said they were electable, I said they were the best chance the pubs had. Look at the idiots pubs have presented as 'conservative'. Unless you would have us believe that candidates like Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann and Palin are the most qualified conservatives in the pub party. As for not being electable, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush Jr would all be considered RINOs by today's conservative standards.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Feb 5, 2012 14:01:18 GMT -5
America doesn't- the GOP is not going to win with a 'conservative' - at least not the far right type that the term has been modified to refer to.Republicans don't seem to understand that the RINOs they insult are their best chance of winning the white house. You're right. I forgot Bush 41, who is famous for calling Reaganomics "voodoo economics" got re-elected in 1992 after compromising with Democrats. Oh, wait- no, he didn't. He got beat. He got beat because the GOP base was so disenchanted with him after he broke his no new taxes pledge, that it paved the way for a looney 3rd party candidate. After that Bob Dole lost, Bush won in a squeaker we all remember against a rambling loon, won re-election because John Kerry was old and white, and then John McCain got beat after an exasperated nation finally determined that McCain = Bush. The reason people like you indicate that RINOs are electable in spite of all the evidence to the contrary is that deep down, you know they're not. I mean, there's practically a liberal cheering section for RINOs every campaign cycle, because you know they're weak. And then there's the fact that we could nominate Barney Frank in the GOP and by the time the general election rolled around, you'd have him painted as someone to the right of Attila the Hun.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Feb 5, 2012 14:03:54 GMT -5
Bush Sr lost because of the economy and Ross Perot.
How do you explain Ronald Reagan getting re elected after raising taxes 16 times?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2012 15:46:27 GMT -5
Bush Sr lost because of the economy and Ross Perot. How do you explain Ronald Reagan getting re elected after raising taxes 16 times? he targeted the rich, as well. but his name is never mentioned in the class warfare discussions. ditto for his massive deficits- the worst since FDR. selective amnesia.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 6, 2012 8:05:35 GMT -5
Bush Sr lost because of the economy and Ross Perot.
I recall hearing ads targeting Bush Sr saying "Saddam Hussein still has his job, how about you?". The public was pretty pissed that the first Gulf War didn't push into Baghdad. Although looking back on it later, Bush Sr and his sec def, Dick Cheney, were right not to open that can of worms.
Even Eisenhower was considered a moderate republican. So who was the last real conservative, that is non-RINO to make it to the white house?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 15:04:17 GMT -5
Bush Sr lost because of the economy and Ross Perot.I recall hearing ads targeting Bush Sr saying "Saddam Hussein still has his job, how about you?". The public was pretty pissed that the first Gulf War didn't push into Baghdad. Although looking back on it later, Bush Sr and his sec def, Dick Cheney, were right not to open that can of worms. Even Eisenhower was considered a moderate republican. So who was the last real conservative, that is non-RINO to make it to the white house? Harding, according to Paul. routinely rated one of the worst presidents in history. most historians rate him dead last. even worse than Harrison, who lasted, what? 30 days?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 16:09:53 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:06:09 GMT -5
this is a funny bit i copied from another board. it made me feel better about my own observations on this subject:
If it weren't improper to psychologically analyze strangers, one might think the Fox hosts are displaying a textbook example of cogitative dissonance here, a psychological phenomena in which people who hold on strong belief about something invent (sometimes farfetched) explanations for new evidence that conflicts with their existing views. Obama is bad for the economy, the jobs numbers show the economy is doing better, so there must be something wrong with the jobs numbers. Needless to say, this is hardly the behavior one expects from fair and balanced journalists Fox hosts claim to be.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 23:14:50 GMT -5
So, you think it is completely irrelevant that the universe of jobs is smaller by 6 million jobs?
You think we should ignore the fact that the labor participation rate is at a 35 year low?
You think that youth unemployment is the highest on record- ever?
I think it is more "fair and balanced" to say that it is not Fox News, or conservatives that are blinded by what we want to believe. That would be other people. I prefer to actually THINK about an issue considering all the information.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:23:31 GMT -5
So, you think it is completely irrelevant that the universe of jobs is smaller by 6 million jobs? of course not. are you aware that the universe of Jobs has been shrinking for about a decade? i have heard several posters argue about how great Bush's unemployment numbers were. do you think that this fact did NOT have an impact THEN? and if so, why was it NEVER mentioned?You think we should ignore the fact that the labor participation rate is at a 35 year low? as a matter of fact, yes. i do. i think we should be consistent in the way we report statistics. particularly without ANY DISCUSSION of WHY the rate is falling. ie- when did the post war baby boom start to retire, Paul? you do the math. lessee, the war ended- when? what is 62 years after that for early retirement?
so if you want to have a nice discussion about that, please, by all means, go right ahead. but for God's sake, man- don't blame the BLS for following protocol and reporting the numbers as they have for HALF A CENTURY.You think that youth unemployment is the highest on record- ever? i have already commented on this, Paul. youth unemployment is ALWAYS the last to recover after a recession. and since this recession is the worst since the Great Depression, YES, i think this makes perfect sense.I think it is more "fair and balanced" to say that it is not Fox News, or conservatives that are blinded by what we want to believe. That would be other people. I prefer to actually THINK about an issue considering all the information. there is absolutely NO evidence that the BLS is slanting the numbers, Paul. for FOX to suggest otherwise is scandalous, imo. it is outrageously ignorant at best, and outright prevarication at worst.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 23:27:59 GMT -5
So, you think it is completely irrelevant that the universe of jobs is smaller by 6 million jobs? of course not. are you aware that the universe of Jobs has been shrinking for about a decade? i have heard several posters argue about how great Bush's unemployment numbers were. do you think that this fact did NOT have an impact THEN? and if so, why was it NEVER mentioned?You think we should ignore the fact that the labor participation rate is at a 35 year low? as a matter of fact, yes. i do. i think we should be consistent in the way we report statistics. particularly without ANY DISCUSSION of WHY the rate is falling. ie- when did the post war baby boom start to retire, Paul? you do the math. lessee, the war ended- when? what is 62 years after that for early retirement?
so if you want to have a nice discussion about that, please, by all means, go right ahead. but for God's sake, man- don't blame the BLS for following protocol and ignoring it.You think that youth unemployment is the highest on record- ever? i have already commented on this, Paul. youth unemployment is ALWAYS the last to recover after a recession. and since this recession is the worst since the Great Depression, YES, i think this makes perfect sense.I think it is more "fair and balanced" to say that it is not Fox News, or conservatives that are blinded by what we want to believe. That would be other people. I prefer to actually THINK about an issue considering all the information. there is absolutely NO evidence that the BLS is slanting the numbers, Paul. for FOX to suggest otherwise is scandalous, imo. it is outrageously ignorant at best, and outright prevarication at worst. I didn't say the numbers were slanted. I said that looking at the unemployment percentage alone is myopic.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 6, 2012 23:31:11 GMT -5
The reason I ignore most of your posts is that you only think you're responding- perfect example:
What does the fact that youth unemployment is the last to recover have to do with anything? It's a fact I won't even dispute- let's stipulate this is true. Now, explain why it's the highest it has ever been? You didn't address that at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,164
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2012 23:32:26 GMT -5
there is absolutely NO evidence that the BLS is slanting the numbers, Paul. for FOX to suggest otherwise is scandalous, imo. it is outrageously ignorant at best, and outright prevarication at worst. I didn't say the numbers were slanted. I said that looking at the unemployment percentage alone is myopic. i will take myopia over blindness any day. the fact remains that approximately 1/4M Americans found work last month. those people will pay taxes, and stop collecting unemployment. everyone should be happy about that. but unfortunately, some people are so obsessed with politics that they can't take a moment and be thankful for small blessings. the millions that are no longer looking for work are probably crowding the beaches down where you live. that is GREAT. it reduces the competition for the openings that ARE happening, which will solve the problem a lot more quickly.
|
|