|
|
On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 00:46 coverpunch wrote:On October 13 2012 17:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 13 2012 14:55 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2012 14:23 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:15 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2012 14:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 13:59 ZeaL. wrote:[quote] You have to remember that facts are "facts". When the people you're trying to convince are being bombarded by this: it's a pretty damn steep uphill battle. Better to just act like you're right and say it with a straight face, Romney proved that in debate 1. /I like the 5.1% gov't worker unemployment. Government worker unemployment??? What does that even mean? You can define government worker. You can defined unemployed. But how can you defined unemployed government worker? 1 minus #Government workers divided by #searching for government work? It's a completely undefinable and meaningless number. Government employment is falling like crazy. If there was more stimulus to keep it growing like the rate under Bush, employment would be more like 7%. ![[image loading]](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/public-private.png) Misleading chart is misleading. Show me what the graph looks like before Bush took office, and before Obama took office. Hurts to know math and how charts work, doesn't it? It's all in the trends. Looks bad right now, but let me see what the before chart looks like please. 99/00 while under Clinton and 07/08 under Bush. There was a huge surge of jobs because we had just started going to war, and everyone knows going to war gets the economy up and running. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USPRIVhttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USGOVT I'd say it looks pretty fucking amazing considering what happened in 07/08. What's amazing? That government employment ever since 1950 has never decreased with only 2 exceptions: the 80s recession and under Obama (spikes due to census hiring are ignored). The private sector is recovering strongly, stronger than under Bush in the 2000 recession, whereas government employment is falling due to state and local government austerity. Wait a second. You need to clarify a couple points in this post. For one, government employment has only decreased in two instances, but that's not by choice. Obama didn't say "I'm making sacrifices of public jobs for the greater good", just like Reagan didn't say that. Government employment decreased by necessity because tax revenues have dried up so much that the government has no choice but to trim jobs to salvage the budget. It's not a praiseworthy event, it's a measure of just how bad the recession was and how slow the recovery has been that tax revenue has not returned to pre-crisis levels. And on that note, by what measure has the private sector recovered more strongly than Bush in the 2001 recession? Because the government should be measuring it by tax revenue, since the rest of the presidential discussion is moot unless it can get the taxes to pay for any of it. On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post?
No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too.
So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms.
|
On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 00:46 coverpunch wrote:On October 13 2012 17:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 13 2012 14:55 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2012 14:23 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:15 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2012 14:02 paralleluniverse wrote:[quote] Government worker unemployment??? What does that even mean? You can define government worker. You can defined unemployed. But how can you defined unemployed government worker? 1 minus #Government workers divided by #searching for government work? It's a completely undefinable and meaningless number. Government employment is falling like crazy. If there was more stimulus to keep it growing like the rate under Bush, employment would be more like 7%. Misleading chart is misleading. Show me what the graph looks like before Bush took office, and before Obama took office. Hurts to know math and how charts work, doesn't it? It's all in the trends. Looks bad right now, but let me see what the before chart looks like please. 99/00 while under Clinton and 07/08 under Bush. There was a huge surge of jobs because we had just started going to war, and everyone knows going to war gets the economy up and running. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USPRIVhttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USGOVT I'd say it looks pretty fucking amazing considering what happened in 07/08. What's amazing? That government employment ever since 1950 has never decreased with only 2 exceptions: the 80s recession and under Obama (spikes due to census hiring are ignored). The private sector is recovering strongly, stronger than under Bush in the 2000 recession, whereas government employment is falling due to state and local government austerity. Wait a second. You need to clarify a couple points in this post. For one, government employment has only decreased in two instances, but that's not by choice. Obama didn't say "I'm making sacrifices of public jobs for the greater good", just like Reagan didn't say that. Government employment decreased by necessity because tax revenues have dried up so much that the government has no choice but to trim jobs to salvage the budget. It's not a praiseworthy event, it's a measure of just how bad the recession was and how slow the recovery has been that tax revenue has not returned to pre-crisis levels. And on that note, by what measure has the private sector recovered more strongly than Bush in the 2001 recession? Because the government should be measuring it by tax revenue, since the rest of the presidential discussion is moot unless it can get the taxes to pay for any of it. On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms.
He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office.
|
On October 14 2012 02:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 01:01 kmillz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +New RNC Ad highlights how ridiculous Joe Biden's laughter was..it gave me a good laugh even though I don't find the current administrations actions very funny. I think this is going to be a really effective add. watching the debate, I didn't even realize that it was that bad; it's pretty clear that either 1) Biden is laughing at everything incredulously so as to create the image of Ryan being too ridiculous even to argue with, or 2) he seriously thinks all that stuff is funny. I'm gonna channel Paul Ryan here real quick: "The problem, Mr. Vice-President, is that the American people don't find lackluster job growth and dishonesty to be all that funny."
I agree, I think people will be very shocked at how hilarious all of this seems to Biden.
On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate.
Because Biden only tells the truth?
"We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya.
BULL SHIT.
|
Let us not forget that Biden did vote for both wars despite saying otherwise during the debate.
|
On October 14 2012 03:20 xDaunt wrote:
Let us not forget that Biden did vote for both wars despite saying otherwise during the debate.
Yes, this is something often overlooked as well, he lied about that too.
|
On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT.
1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi
2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees.
Source.
You're welcome.
|
I have a question:
Why aren't other candidates from the other political parties invited to debate?
|
On October 14 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. 1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi 2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees. Source. You're welcome.
Ok? What is your point? Even if extra help wouldn't have changed the outcome, he still lied about them asking for it.
|
On October 14 2012 03:48 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
I have a question:
Why aren't other candidates from the other political parties invited to debate?
The organizing body of the debates (Commission on Presidential Debates) is controlled by the two major parties.
|
On October 14 2012 03:50 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. 1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi 2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees. Source. You're welcome. Ok? What is your point? Even if extra help wouldn't have changed the outcome, he still lied about them asking for it.
Uh, I think his point was that Paul Ryan's assertion was that the Bengazi embassy asked for aid, not the Tripoli one. That's kind of a big difference. If they didn't, then Biden saying they didn't wasn't a lie.
|
On October 14 2012 04:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:50 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. 1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi 2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees. Source. You're welcome. Ok? What is your point? Even if extra help wouldn't have changed the outcome, he still lied about them asking for it. Uh, I think his point was that Paul Ryan's assertion was that the Bengazi embassy asked for aid, not the Tripoli one. That's kind of a big difference. If they didn't, then Biden saying they didn't wasn't a lie.
This isn't about Paul Ryan, it is about Joe Biden. Notice "mostly for the embassy in Tripoli" not "only for the embassy in Tripoli".
|
On October 14 2012 04:46 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2012 03:50 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. 1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi 2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees. Source. You're welcome. Ok? What is your point? Even if extra help wouldn't have changed the outcome, he still lied about them asking for it. Uh, I think his point was that Paul Ryan's assertion was that the Bengazi embassy asked for aid, not the Tripoli one. That's kind of a big difference. If they didn't, then Biden saying they didn't wasn't a lie. This isn't about Paul Ryan, it is about Joe Biden. Notice "mostly for the embassy in Tripoli" not "only for the embassy in Tripoli".
How do you know they wanted security for Bengazi though, there are more than 2 embassies/consulates we have in the middle east, there isn't one embassy in Tripoli and then one in Bengazi and that's it .. It's a pretty big leap to assume that the rest of the aid is for Bengazi consulate and not an embassy in an entirely different country even.
Until they say that the "rest" of the aid was meant FOR Bengazi, then I don't think Biden lied here, I think both of them were being misleading with this however.
I think the Obama administration messed up on this shit, and i think it is a blow, and I am critical of them for it, but there is no need to twist the reports/facts too make it look worse.
|
On October 14 2012 03:50 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. 1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi 2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees. Source. You're welcome. Ok? What is your point? Even if extra help wouldn't have changed the outcome, he still lied about them asking for it.
He said they didn't know they wanted more security, he didn't lie about a thing. Not every little thing goes to the white house to be looked over.
|
On October 14 2012 02:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 02:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 02:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 14 2012 01:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 00:46 coverpunch wrote:On October 13 2012 17:55 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 13 2012 14:55 Silidons wrote:On October 12 2012 14:23 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 12 2012 14:15 Silidons wrote:
[quote]
Misleading chart is misleading. Show me what the graph looks like before Bush took office, and before Obama took office. Hurts to know math and how charts work, doesn't it? It's all in the trends. Looks bad right now, but let me see what the before chart looks like please. 99/00 while under Clinton and 07/08 under Bush.
There was a huge surge of jobs because we had just started going to war, and everyone knows going to war gets the economy up and running. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USPRIVhttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USGOVT I'd say it looks pretty fucking amazing considering what happened in 07/08. What's amazing? That government employment ever since 1950 has never decreased with only 2 exceptions: the 80s recession and under Obama (spikes due to census hiring are ignored). The private sector is recovering strongly, stronger than under Bush in the 2000 recession, whereas government employment is falling due to state and local government austerity. Wait a second. You need to clarify a couple points in this post. For one, government employment has only decreased in two instances, but that's not by choice. Obama didn't say "I'm making sacrifices of public jobs for the greater good", just like Reagan didn't say that. Government employment decreased by necessity because tax revenues have dried up so much that the government has no choice but to trim jobs to salvage the budget. It's not a praiseworthy event, it's a measure of just how bad the recession was and how slow the recovery has been that tax revenue has not returned to pre-crisis levels. And on that note, by what measure has the private sector recovered more strongly than Bush in the 2001 recession? Because the government should be measuring it by tax revenue, since the rest of the presidential discussion is moot unless it can get the taxes to pay for any of it. On the first point, yes. There wasn't enough stimulus money given to state and local governments to retain public sector workers. But look at the other recessions (grey shaded areas). Every other recession, except the 80's one, didn't see a fall in public sector employment. On the second point, the measure is employment. See previous post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=781#15613 If I'm not mistaken the graph you previously posted shows employment since the start of presidential terms - not since the start of the recessions / recoveries. So it isn't apples to apples. There was a recession at the start of both the Bush and Obama term. Or should I just replace the word "recession" with "presidency" in my above post? No, the latest recession didn't start when Obama took office. According to the NBER the economy peaked in Dec. of '07 and if you look at BLS data employment started to tank in Feb. of '08. Conversely the NBER says that the economy peaked in Mar. of '01 for Bush and employment started to tank at that time too. So, there's about a 1 year timing issue just using presidential terms. He didn't say the recession started when Obama took office, he said there was a recession when he took office.
Yes, but there wasn't a recession when Bush first took office. When Bush first took office the economy was at its peak. When Obama took office the economy was far closer to its bottom than its peak. So it isn't apples to apples. When you show a graph of employment by term you show the entire downturn in the '01 recession but you do not show the entire downturn of the latest recession.
|
Ryan was hilarious. I was in stitches listening to him speak. Especially the 'unemployment rate goes down, but unemployment rate in some city went up, thus that's what's happening in the rest of America'.
Too funny.
|
Can we give up this idea that there is a meaningful correlation between who's president and the "state of the economy" (expressed, of course, as a one-dimensional value)?
|
On October 14 2012 04:59 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:50 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. 1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi 2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees. Source. You're welcome. Ok? What is your point? Even if extra help wouldn't have changed the outcome, he still lied about them asking for it. He said they didn't know they wanted more security, he didn't lie about a thing. Not every little thing goes to the white house to be looked over.
"It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/12/joe-biden/biden-says-we-werent-told-Libya-security-requests/
|
On October 14 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. 1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi 2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees. Source. You're welcome.
Those poor ill-informed people in the White House were pretty quick to jump on the "evil hateful movie on youtube" bandwagon as a surety. Pardon me if amongst the numerous White House official positions on what happened, if I'm caused to doubt whether or not they heard about trouble over there in the months leading up to it and made the decision not to commit resources. Not that the UN Ambassador Susan Rice (yes, Obama nominee) was ridiculously off base when she said itwas a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video
Administration has given plenty of reasons to doubt that lax security on the anniversary of 9/11 was purely a low-level decision never reaching the President or VP in an intelligence briefing or communication from the state department.
Romney accused Vice President Joe Biden of “doubling down on denial” concerning security at the diplomatic post where the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed. During the vice presidential debate Thursday, Biden said “we weren’t told” about the Benghazi consulate’s requests for additional security. Although a State Department official told Congress on Wednesday about the requests, the White House said Friday that Biden was speaking just for himself and for the president.
“The vice president directly contradicted the sworn testimony of State Department officials,” said Romney, who was eager to stoke a controversy that has flared periodically since the attack. “American citizens have a right to know just what’s going on. And we’re going to find out.”
source
|
On October 14 2012 05:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Can we give up this idea that there is a meaningful correlation between who's president and the "state of the economy" (expressed, of course, as a one-dimensional value)?
There have been 21 major recession in the US. The first 18 happened in the first 150 years, and all of them ended in under 4 years from their peaks without any government help. When the stock market crashed in the 20's, unemployment spiked to 9.8%, and then 6 months later, it was down to 6%. Then the government passed a 20% tariff on all imports, and unemployed shot up to double digits, and didn't leave for the next decade. Then we had the Reagan recession, in which unemployment went back to relatively normal levels 4 years after its peak.
So we have 19 recessions that all had unemployment coming down from its peak in 4 or less years, often with double digit unemployment. We have a 20th where unemployment came down in 6 months, and then skyrocketed when the government decided to do something. And now we have today's unemployment. Given the history of recessions in this country, who do you think is to blame, and what "should" the unemployment rate be?
The answer is Bush, and every single republican and democrat that voted with him, and Obama, and every republican and democrat that voted with him.
Also note that presidents and other politicians aren't really empowered enough to create unemployment, but they can extended by about 15-20 years if you look at FDR.
(not that any of this is directed at you, just yours seems to be the latest post on this subject).
|
On October 14 2012 05:10 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 04:59 Zooper31 wrote:On October 14 2012 03:50 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 03:44 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 03:13 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 01:49 paralleluniverse wrote:
He's laughing at Ryan and his lies, not laughing at the issues.
I also don't recall you complaining about his laughing during the debate. Because Biden only tells the truth? "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya. BULL SHIT. 1. The security requests were mostly for the embassy in Tripoli, not the facility in Bengazi 2. Those security requests did not reach the White House but were dealt with by low- (and possibly mid-) level State Department employees. Source. You're welcome. Ok? What is your point? Even if extra help wouldn't have changed the outcome, he still lied about them asking for it. He said they didn't know they wanted more security, he didn't lie about a thing. Not every little thing goes to the white house to be looked over. "It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/12/joe-biden/biden-says-we-werent-told-Libya-security-requests/
Quote from site, yes I realize we are splitting hairs but thats what politicians do for a living, say things we think they mean but they actually mean something else all together.
That statement is accurate only if you define "we" to mean "people at the White House.
Anyway I think both sides are at fault for misleading the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen9777D716-1BE3-2F15-D79B-085DE4572DAD.jpg&width=600)
