AsburySkinsFan Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 To the extent that they read about Friedman on their blogs. Bring up TARP, and they don't know what you mean. #1 search result on "Milton Friedman tarp" http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=NThkZTQ0ZGFlN2FhOWRmNWE4NTY4NmU5Y2Y0NDVkMTk= Shocker! When did this Conservative become a liberal? ---------- Post added October-9th-2012 at 08:16 AM ---------- Is that the money largely made overseas?the argument I traditionally hear is why would they not hire here to make money, perhaps because for many the major profits are made elsewhere? many of ya'll are highly educated.... why would they not create more jobs here to profit? Why would they create jobs here for less profit? how you set the table matters So are you hen suggesting that the average American worker accept third world wages? Interesting...I wonder who then will buy all the junk we'll make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 So are you hen suggesting that the average American worker accept third world wages? Interesting...I wonder who then will buy all the junk we'll make? are they better than the third world worker?...are you?...if they bring more value,they can demand more money or the ones setting the rules need to bend them to favor them instead of borrowing to buy chinese crap we then have to subsidise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 are they better than the third world worker?...are you?...if they bring more value,they can demand more moneyor the ones setting the rules need to bend them to favor them instead of borrowing to buy chinese crap we then have to subsidise Again, not about country....just money. The CEOs must get a big hearty laugh everytime the GOP prancing monkeys sing songs of patriotism. They don't care about workers and we've opened the door for them to bandon the very people who made them so bloody rich. Talk about class warfare. Ayn Rand must have a special place in your heart, do you remember the day you asked her into your life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 To the extent that they read about Friedman on their blogs. Bring up TARP, and they don't know what you mean. Sure they do. They hated it when Obama did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Again, not about country....just money. The CEOs must get a big hearty laugh everytime the GOP prancing monkeys sing songs of patriotism. They don't care about workers and we've opened the door for them to bandon the very people who made them so bloody rich. Talk about class warfare. Ayn Rand must have a special place in your heart, do you remember the day you asked her into your life? says the guy closing doors to US jobs and that apparently thinks buying Chinese windmills and solar panels (we then subsidize operation of) is strengthening and protecting America. Enjoy your good health and clean hands Mr America ---------- Post added October-9th-2012 at 08:46 AM ---------- Sure they do. They hated it when Obama did it. Some of us told you it was a mistake(poorly done) when W did it. and when O compounded the errors ---------- Post added October-9th-2012 at 08:49 AM ---------- Sure they do. They hated it when Obama did it. Some of us told you it was a mistake(poorly done) when W did it. and when O compounded the errors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Wealth distribution is the most important economic problem today. There's no easy solution, but the reality is, and always has been, the way to ensure the economy functions effectively and grows is to have a large middle class purchasing from businesses consistently, which drives those businesses to hire and expand, which creates a self-reinforcing cycle. We've been moving in the wrong direction for 30+ years based on a false premise, the concept that trickle down works. The thing is, trickle down would probably work if you could compel the wealthy to spend the money we're handing them on the economy, but all too often it sits in an account somewhere, or get invested in foreign ventures. And, of course, tax cuts/rebates with strings attached are, of course wildly anti-American. One more point on the unemployment numbers, on the U3 vs. U6 numbers, since this has been a growing debate of late. Prior to this administration, the U6 was not the standard, nor had it ever been the standard, and the U3 was largely universally acknowledged at the true number. To be fair, it still is, but the debate on U3 vs. U6 is still fairly new. While I don't necessarily oppose the use the of U6 measure, I am a bit disappointed by the fact that the U6 has been adopted by the right only just now, when it's politically expedient. The goal posts on unemployment keep moving and it's a bit disingenuous of the right, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I'm perfectly happy to look at the numbers behind the U3....as has been done by both parties or are you claiming the left has not questioned the type of jobs created in the past utilizing the U6(as well as other metrics)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I'm perfectly happy to look at the numbers behind the U3....as has been done by both partiesor are you claiming the left has not questioned the type of jobs created in the past utilizing the U6(as well as other metrics)? To the same extent that the right is now examining the U6? Yes, I'm claiming that. It's like the national debt. Prior to Obama, the debt was "an" issue when discussing the budget. Now it is the central issue when discussing the budget. Prior to this administration the U6 was an interesting factoid, and was discussed academically but was not really included substantively in conversations concerning jobs numbers, and underemployment was not discussed much in the mainstream. Now, there is a large portion of the right that is trying very hard to make underemployment a key issue, and do so only just now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I'd suggest you have a selective memory ,or were just not paying attention in the past(maybe because of your age though) most of this stuff is just reruns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I'd suggest you have a selective memory ,or were just not paying attention in the past(maybe because of your age though)most of this stuff is just reruns I've been watching politics incredibly closely since age 10, so about 2000, and have studied history quite a bit in addition to that as a Government major. Again, I'm not saying it wasn't an issue, but when was the debt such a high profile issue in the past? In no prior election cycle was the debt featured in an ad during almost every commercial break. It was present, but not central. To be fair, there were mitigating factors, during Reagan you had the Cold War, and during Bush II you had the war on terror, but that doesn't make it any less inconsistent for it to be a huge issue now. Especially when you consider that much of the debt is structural, and that structure was put in place by Republican administrations. The same thing is true of the U6 and the concept of underemployment. During the recovery from the dotcom bubble bursting, unemployment numbers were almost exclusively discussed in U3 terms. Again, the U6 and the concept of underemployment was around. But the way I knew of it was mainly through family that lived out in western PA and was dealing with the loss of the steel industry. Again, being fair, the concept of underemployment is still not as widely discussed as it could be, in terms of coverage the debt is far more widely discussed, but underemployment in previous election cycles was mentioned only in passing. Maybe it has to do with the changes in the media in recent times, but the change is still there. It's less reruns and more remakes, with the show's emphasis changed a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Some of us told you it was a mistake(poorly done) when W did it. and when O compounded the errors You must hold Reagan in very low esteem. As a matter of fact, you should loathe him Your a hypocrite if you don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I'm perfectly happy to look at the numbers behind the U3....as has been done by both partiesor are you claiming the left has not questioned the type of jobs created in the past utilizing the U6(as well as other metrics)? 7.8 unemployment numbers suck. The jobs which brought us from 8.1 likewise suck. And you are absolutely right that most of the jobs created under the Bush administration sucked too, according to democrats. The best think you can say about the unemployment numbers was at least people leaving the work force was not the primary reason the numbers went down. That is not high praise, that is merely what passes for high praise over the last 12 years. The quality of the jobs the us economy has been creating is nothing to brag about on either side of the isle. ---------- Post added October-9th-2012 at 02:56 PM ---------- Again, I'm not saying it wasn't an issue, but when was the debt such a high profile issue in the past? Debt was one of the top issues in both the Jimmy Cater sucessful election of 1976, and Ronald Reagan's secessful election in 1980, and Bill Clinton's 1992 election... In no prior election cycle was the debt featured in an ad during almost every commercial break. It was present, but not central. Well debt was certainly a central issue in every american election I can remember with the possible exception of Bush II, first eleciton in 2000 since Gingrich/Clinton were so sucessful in dealing with that debt. I don't think the political adds were as prevelent because we didn't have PACs and virginia (traditionally conservative) wasn't always a battle ground state in many of those elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 says the guy closing doors to US jobs and that apparently thinks buying Chinese windmills and solar panels (we then subsidize operation of) is strengthening and protecting America.Enjoy your good health and clean hands Mr America I swear you must have hot keys on your computer that automatically type irrelevant Right wing talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 You must hold Reagan in very low esteem. As a matter of fact, you should loathe himYour a hypocrite if you don't I'm not a fan,and it's not just a problem with his spending I do loathe him less than Carter though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 It's funny how Republicans view Ronald Reagan has the ultimate conservative ideal and the one of the worst Republican Presidents that we've had. Speaking of which...when's the last time this country elected a Republican President who wasn't completely disowned by his own party? Lincoln? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 It's funny how Republicans view Ronald Reagan has the ultimate conservative ideal and the one of the worst Republican Presidents that we've had. You can't be serious. Regan admitted his mistakes such as first being a Democrat. Even Obama tries to channel Ronaldus Maximus when pretending to have Conservative traits when attempting to snooker conservative Democrats and Conservative blacks. Uh oh Jobless data claim is not totally accurate. http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/10/11/jobless-claims-data-skewed-downward/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 7.9% businesses hiring Queue the Right saying that this isn't the REAL number (even though it has been the standard metric for as long as anyone can remember), queue them saying that things are still worse (even though we're finally back to the point when O took over from Bush) queue the Right saying this is manipulated data, queue them screaming any number of rationales that insist changing directions midstream is a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 To the same extent that the right is now examining the U6? Yes, I'm claiming that. It's like the national debt. Prior to Obama, the debt was "an" issue when discussing the budget. Now it is the central issue when discussing the budget. Prior to this administration the U6 was an interesting factoid, and was discussed academically but was not really included substantively in conversations concerning jobs numbers, and underemployment was not discussed much in the mainstream. Now, there is a large portion of the right that is trying very hard to make underemployment a key issue, and do so only just now. For as long as I remember (which admittedly isn't all that far) people will speak in U6 and U3 terms when it benefits their argument. I think even in the 2nd debate Romney mentioned Bush's unemployment numbers in a U3 perspective, and then mentioned Obama's numbers saying something like "plus it's a lot worse when you consider those who are underemployed or have stopped looking." He basically wants us to think that people never stopped looking during the Bush administration but are now doing so with Obama as president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Another 171,000 jobs added vs the expected 125,000. Unemployment at 7.9%. These numbers are fixed I tell ya. Another 84,000 jobs were added to the August/September numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Great! At this rate look for full recovery in 2025! Obama 2016 to move even more forwarder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Great! At this rate look for full recovery in 2025!Obama 2016 to move even more forwarder! You want more jobs...tell companies to hire more and give fewer golden parachutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 For as long as I remember (which admittedly isn't all that far) people will speak in U6 and U3 terms when it benefits their argument. I think even in the 2nd debate Romney mentioned Bush's unemployment numbers in a U3 perspective, and then mentioned Obama's numbers saying something like "plus it's a lot worse when you consider those who are underemployed or have stopped looking." He basically wants us to think that people never stopped looking during the Bush administration but are now doing so with Obama as president. That's been the mantra for at least the last four years. "Hey look at Bush's U3 numbers compared to Obama's U6 numbers!! See how bad Obama is!?!?" :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Great! At this rate look for full recovery in 2025!Obama 2016 to move even more forwarder! Better to move forward slowly than backwards. Looking at the numbers there are things in it for both sides. Romney will obviously hit him on the % like he has been and Obama will counter with better than expected jobs. This is going to have little to no impact on the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 This is going to have little to no impact on the race. Other than show that last month's numbers aren't as bogus as the Right claimed. I think it's hilarious that the Right demands that Obama create jobs at a faster rate than Bush lost them. Rmoney has a commercial running out here hat says Obama lost so many jobs, but blatantly refuses to acknowledge that the job losses would have continued regardless of whoever was elected in the previous electon. I hate lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Great! At this rate look for full recovery in 2025!Obama 2016 to move even more forwarder! These are weak Republican talking points. It is great news for the US economy that jobs are being add (more than expect), housing starts are up, consumer confidence it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.