Democrats in Disarray

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are far more people who remain skeptical than those like you who are such ardent fans that they fail to understand why Obama's 1st year hasnt been so great when 70% of the population feels the country is heading in the wrong direction.
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You would think if the leader of the country was doing such a bang up job the citizens would be a little more optimistic.

they don't realize he nominated a justice? they need to pay attention.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Post 94 contains a link to an article by an economist who disagrees

??? That economist doesn't say the economic stimulus was a failure. He's complaining about how the job numbers are calculated. Post it if I missed it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're just cherry picking....if you're going to post pro-admin stuff, that's fine...but con is not allowed.

Here are virtually all of the polls on Obama's performance

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

43% of Americans think Obama is doing a better job than the worst, evil, stupid, incompetent president in history. That means 53% of Americans don't think he is even better than Bush.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

??? That economist doesn't say the economic stimulus was a failure. He's complaining about how the job numbers are calculated. Post it if I missed it.

The Obama administration claims a dubious "Keynesian" multiplier of 1.5 to feed the Democrats' thirst for big spending. The administration's idea is that virtually all their spending creates jobs for unemployed people and that additional rounds of spending create still more—raising income by $1.50 for each dollar of government spending. Economists differ on such multipliers, with many leading figures pegging them at well under 1.0 as the government spending in part replaces private spending and jobs. But all agree that every dollar of spending requires a present value of a dollar of future taxes, which distorts decisions to work, save, and invest and raises the cost of the dollar of spending to well over a dollar. Thus, only spending with large societal benefits is justified, a criterion unlikely to be met by much current spending (perusing the projects on recovery.gov doesn't inspire confidence}

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it did fail at what they were attempting to stop-the rise of unemployment past 10 %. i didn't say it was a complete and utter, abject failure, but it did fail to keep unemployment below this admins magic number-didn't it? that's what i wrote, if failed at that. you need to try harder to read and comprehend what i'm actually writing, not what you think i'm saying.

But keeping unemployment at less than 10% wasn't the only reason for the stimulus. Yet it's the only thing you are using to judge it's effectiveness.

Unemployment numbers have peaked and have been dropping markedly the past few months, and are continuing to drop. They are the lowest they've been in a long time.

The stimulus is still a long way from being completely disbursed, too.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

But keeping unemployment at less than 10% wasn't the only reason for the stimulus. Yet it's the only thing you are using to judge it's effectiveness.

Unemployment numbers have peaked and have been dropping markedly the past few months, and are continuing to drop. They are the lowest they've been in a long time.

The stimulus is still a long way from being completely disbursed, too.

http://forecasts.org/unemploy.htm


Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-85,000) in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 10.0 percent.



In the week ending Jan. 9, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 444,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 433,000


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...te-steady.html


'Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.'

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're just cherry picking....if you're going to post pro-admin stuff, that's fine...but con is not allowed.

No, I'm still waiting on your "cons". And I won't even cherry pick out the few words that would make your article sound like it meant something different than what it said

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://forecasts.org/unemploy.htm


Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-85,000) in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 10.0 percent.



In the week ending Jan. 9, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 444,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 433,000


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...te-steady.html


Lack of confidence in the economic recovery led employers to shed a more-than-expected 85,000 jobs in December even as the unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The rate would have been higher if more people had been looking for work instead of leaving the labor force because they can't find jobs.

Rather than look at a few weeks, look at Chart 2 - this is what I am talking about:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...ght-month.html

Unemployment is the lowest it's been since December 07 - March 08 figures.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The Obama administration claims a dubious "Keynesian" multiplier of 1.5 to feed the Democrats' thirst for big spending. The administration's idea is that virtually all their spending creates jobs for unemployed people and that additional rounds of spending create still more—raising income by $1.50 for each dollar of government spending. Economists differ on such multipliers, with many leading figures pegging them at well under 1.0 as the government spending in part replaces private spending and jobs. But all agree that every dollar of spending requires a present value of a dollar of future taxes, which distorts decisions to work, save, and invest and raises the cost of the dollar of spending to well over a dollar. Thus, only spending with large societal benefits is justified, a criterion unlikely to be met by much current spending (perusing the projects on recovery.gov doesn't inspire confidence}

Doesn't call the stimulus a failure. Again, the guy isn't happy with the way the jobs numbers are being calculated (there was a recent change); and also isn't happy with who stimulus funds are being disbursed to (although he's not specific - he says "large societal benefits" - so is he against the train and road projects? the tax cuts? what exactly?)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Here are virtually all of the polls on Obama's performance

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

43% of Americans think Obama is doing a better job than the worst, evil, stupid, incompetent president in history. That means 53% of Americans don't think he is even better than Bush.

We'll be sure to put you in that 16% that doesn't like anything the President does, and never will

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Rather than look at a few weeks, look at Chart 2 - this is what I am talking about:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...ght-month.html

Unemployment is the lowest it's been since December 07 - March 08 figures.

Do you understand what this guy is saying? You may want to rethink using his blog to defend your position which he quite effectively not only shows is wrong but much worse than the traditional numbers show.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Doesn't call the stimulus a failure. Again, the guy isn't happy with the way the jobs numbers are being calculated (there was a recent change); and also isn't happy with who stimulus funds are being disbursed to (although he's not specific - he says "large societal benefits" - so is he against the train and road projects? the tax cuts? what exactly?)

You simply dont get it...

here try this one

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...162110460.html


at some point you really have to stop with this tax cut stuff...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

We'll be sure to put you in that 16% that doesn't like anything the President does, and never will

Ha ha ha!!! Arent you funny. Now again why exactly dont the American people believe Obama is doing such a great job? Why do the majority of the people polled in multiple polls think the country is headed in the wrong direction? Why do 53% of people polled believe Obama isnt even better than Bush if he had such a good year? Hell what will the numbers be if he has an off year?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Do you understand what this guy is saying? You may want to rethink using his blog to defend your position which he quite effectively not only shows is wrong but much worse than the traditional numbers show.

Keep up. I'm not using his blog to "defend" anything, I'm use the chart, which is the same chart alot of places have, to show the actual numbers are what I said regarding the pattern.

At least using this guy's page, you can't blatently dismiss it out of hand as liberal garbage.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You simply dont get it...

here try this one

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...162110460.html


at some point you really have to stop with this tax cut stuff...

In the question of "is the stimulus is a failure", you quote one guy who doesn't really say that, then you just quote the same one guy again from a couple months previously?

Where are all the economists reviewing the first part, the first months, of the stimulus package (what, about 1/4 disbursed?) here in January 2010, and declaring it a failure? To make Antitrust happy, a "total failure" would be good.

Face it - Obama isn't the complete disaster you maintain he is, the entire US citizenry isn't against him (pretty strong poll numbers, actually, in the face what is happening the country), the fact is alot of people are assessing his first year anniversary in a positive manner based upon what the guy has actually accomplished, and you just can't stand the thought of that.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

In the question of "is the stimulus is a failure", you quote one guy who doesn't really say that, then you just quote the same one guy again from a couple months previously?

Where are all the economists reviewing the first part, the first months, of the stimulus package (what, about 1/4 disbursed?) here in January 2010, and declaring it a failure? To make Antitrust happy, a "total failure" would be good.

Face it - Obama isn't the complete disaster you maintain he is, the entire US citizenry isn't against him (pretty strong poll numbers, actually, in the face what is happening the country), the fact is alot of people are assessing his first year anniversary in a positive manner based upon what the guy has actually accomplished, and you just can't stand the thought of that.

Way to distort the questions! No one said he was a complete disater or that the entire US citizenry was against him. But you simply choose to ignore all that which doesnt back your ridiclous assertions and general rah rah cheerleading. His poll numbers arent very good regardless of the spin (Imagine where they would be if the latest terrorist wasnt so inept?), The majority of citizens dont feel we are heading in the right direction and the world is just as dangerous to Americans as it has ever been.

Seriously if Obama cheated on his wife with a tranny you would praise him for his diverse sexuality. I actually get tired of ragging on him frankly because much of what he is doing is depressing. You still havent said one word about how the stimlus has hamstrung the states with their mandates (which were completely intentionally placed as to further the "cause") and how it unfairly shifts the burden of social programs onto the states. That other programs and state services will be and already are being slashed in order to meet these mandates escapes you because either you dont get it or choose to ignore the inconveinent truths.

[dalakhani]

[quote=Cannon Shell]
Seriously if Obama cheated on his wife with a tranny you would praise him for his diverse sexuality. QUOTE]

Where did you steal that?

[Cannon Shell]

[quote=dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously if Obama cheated on his wife with a tranny you would praise him for his diverse sexuality. QUOTE]

Where did you steal that?

An original.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

(Imagine where they would be if the latest terrorist wasnt so inept?)

In all seriousness, wasn't it actually very adept terrorists that gave the last President his highest approval ratings of his entire presidency?

I mean, I highly suspect that the benefit of the doubt, good faith, and banding together that everyone did after 9/11 for Dubya wouldn't be afforded in any way to Obama, but if my memory serves, the worst terrorist attack in American history actually IMPROVED the ratings to a career-best for the last guy.

Just interesting.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

In all seriousness, wasn't it actually very adept terrorists that gave the last President his highest approval ratings of his entire presidency?

I mean, I highly suspect that the benefit of the doubt, good faith, and banding together that everyone did after 9/11 for Dubya wouldn't be afforded in any way to Obama, but if my memory serves, the worst terrorist attack in American history actually IMPROVED the ratings to a career-best for the last guy.

Just interesting.

The situations are completely different. 9/11 was a sneak attack that many Americans didnt think could happen. It was the first time in 50 years that we had been attacked on our soil. We as a country banded together because we all felt violated not all together different than perhaps how the country felt after Pearl Harbor. Now that we know that the threat is real and possible the govt in charge will take the heat and that wont change regardless of who is in charge.