Obama's impeachable Offenses(link)

[Stealhead]

It all depends on the person just because your opinion changed does not mean that it is so for everyone.Some people will feel stronger and stronger in their leanings other will drift more to the middle a very small number will make the drastic change usually the really nutty ones.Did you know that Hitler very nearly considered going to some communist party meetings his police assignment changed all of that.

In my youth my mother was more or less a moderate republican and my father was a generally moderate democrat their voting varied a bit though they never stuck to party lines in every election.As a teenager I always had a dislike for hard core left and right ideas and that never really changed much so I always felt very moderate and to some degree libertarian I still feel this way for the most part and I am registered as an independent I have always disliked how the Republicans and Democrats for the most part just sit there and bicker with each other both sides always are trying to convince you that the other is the worst possible thing for the country.What I most dislike about both is how they all to some degree want to tell everyone how to live get lost with that nonsense.

[misha1967]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You shoot you miss you fail


Well obviously you are completely the wrong person
What is this unshakable belief you rant about and what do you think it is faith in?
This topic was funny enough as it was, but you have now pushed up the hilarity factor by a huge measure, well done

Ever so sorry that I didn't quite catch the transcendent wisdom cleverly disguised in your original post, which was what I replied to. I must have utterly missed the mark since you did not once deign to provide my poor inferior self with something even remotely resembling an actual answer. For that transgression, I do most sincerely and humbly apologize.

My obviously hideously errant impression that you, somehow, thought that the main problem with socialism was that wise men hadn't yet found the right mixture, was based entirely upon my reading of what you said earlier:

That is why most people who think would advocate a mixed system not the same lame ones again and again, the problem of course being finding the right mix that would work

I realize now, of course, that at no point did you suggest that people "who think", as opposed to unenlightened individuals quite unlike your own omniscient self, would "advocate a mixed system" with "the problem of course being finding the right mix that would work."

For some reason, no doubt due to my ignorance, I took your exact words to mean what they actually said, at no point allowing for the possibility that English might not be your first language.

I stand chastised before your obvious superior intellect, humbled as a result of your expert wielding of playground insults and recognize that I have met my superior.

Oh, just one question, should you deign to answer it with something more enlightening that smileys and evasions, which is obviously all that a mere plebeian such as myself deserve: How is that "trying to find the correct mixture for the Utopia of Next Tuesday" working out for you over there in the vibrant economy of Ireland? I haven't had an update in ages.

Do let me know when you hit that perfect "mix" so that we may copy it over here in the colonies.

Thank you ever so much.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

It all depends on the person...

In my youth my mother was more or less a moderate republican and my father was a generally moderate democrat...

A lot has to do with your parents. My parents are ''don't give a damn about politics'' kind a people and there was no influence from them.
One of my friends is a die hard Yugo nostalgic. Bring back socialism and Tito. Not surprised, his parents were active party members and still have a picture of Tito in their house.
Another friend comes from a religius family and is right oriented, despite him not being religius. And we're all in our mid-twenties so we had plenty of time to develop an independent opinion

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by misha1967

Ever so sorry that I didn't quite catch the transcendent wisdom cleverly disguised in your original post, which was what I replied to. I must have utterly missed the mark since you did not once deign to provide my poor inferior self with something even remotely resembling an actual answer. For that transgression, I do most sincerely and humbly apologize.

My obviously hideously errant impression that you, somehow, thought that the main problem with socialism was that wise men hadn't yet found the right mixture, was based entirely upon my reading of what you said earlier:



I realize now, of course, that at no point did you suggest that people "who think", as opposed to unenlightened individuals quite unlike your own omniscient self, would "advocate a mixed system" with "the problem of course being finding the right mix that would work."

For some reason, no doubt due to my ignorance, I took your exact words to mean what they actually said, at no point allowing for the possibility that English might not be your first language.

I stand chastised before your obvious superior intellect, humbled as a result of your expert wielding of playground insults and recognize that I have met my superior.

Oh, just one question, should you deign to answer it with something more enlightening that smileys and evasions, which is obviously all that a mere plebeian such as myself deserve: How is that "trying to find the correct mixture for the Utopia of Next Tuesday" working out for you over there in the vibrant economy of Ireland? I haven't had an update in ages.

Do let me know when you hit that perfect "mix" so that we may copy it over here in the colonies.

Thank you ever so much.

can you define what it is that you mean by socialism? What forms of government spending are not socialism in your view? For example is government maintenance of public highways a form of socialism in your view? And if so, is it an acceptable form?

Ever so sorry that I didn't quite catch the transcendent wisdom cleverly disguised in your original post, which was what I replied to.

No you didn't

For some reason, no doubt due to my ignorance, I took your exact words to mean what they actually said

Obviously it was your ignorance as you didn't take them for what they actually said and instead went tilting at windmills like donkey oaty.

My obviously hideously errant impression that you, somehow, thought that the main problem with socialism was that wise men hadn't yet found the right mixture, was based entirely upon my reading of what you said earlier:

Reading again

Oh, just one question, should you deign to answer it with something more enlightening that smileys and evasions, which is obviously all that a mere plebeian such as myself deserve: How is that "trying to find the correct mixture for the Utopia of Next Tuesday" working out for you over there in the vibrant economy of Ireland? I haven't had an update in ages.

It is working out very well for me, the unintelligent free marketering and deregulation just for the sake of it by copying all the worst aspects of failed thatcherite ideology went exactly the same way as her experiment did(or even worse in some aspects). As I did very well out of that screw up in Britain I was even better prepared for taking advantage of this inevitable screw up here.
Meanwhile the muppets who swallowed all the marketing crap from the politicians and the banks (which sounds like an "idea" you adhere to) are in debt up to their eyeballs with properties that are worth bugger all compared to what they paid.
Slightly worried about any further expansion yet as the market hasn't fully tanked and the upswing will be slow.

Hows the Utopia over there are you in the same boat as the ideologues like yubba?

Do let me know when you hit that perfect "mix" so that we may copy it over here in the colonies.

So history is another failing of your then as well as language and politics

Keep building those strawmmen

can you define what it is that you mean by socialism?

I think it was clearly defined earlier...... everything they don't like or don't get is socialism.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Betonov

A lot has to do with your parents. My parents are ''don't give a damn about politics'' kind a people and there was no influence from them.
One of my friends is a die hard Yugo nostalgic. Bring back socialism and Tito. Not surprised, his parents were active party members and still have a picture of Tito in their house.
Another friend comes from a religius family and is right oriented, despite him not being religius. And we're all in our mid-twenties so we had plenty of time to develop an independent opinion

That is usually the case in the US most of the time but not always.Of course in the US in order to get voted in as president one must get the majority of the moderate vote that is the key.If you are the Dem Rep runner during the primaries in most states the registered voters can only vote for their party so during the primaries which does narrow down who each candidate will be will be once that is done you pretty much have all of your firm party voters.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

That is usually the case in the US most of the time but not always.Of course in the US in order to get voted in as president one must get the majority of the moderate vote that is the key.If you are the Dem Rep runner during the primaries in most states the registered voters can only vote for their party so during the primaries which does narrow down who each candidate will be will be once that is done you pretty much have all of your firm party voters.

It's a fine line to walk. You need to appeal enough to the moderates to get their vote, but you can't stray too far away from the base that you fail to turn out their vote.

[Stealhead]

Yep I am sure that one of the advisers tells each runner which moderate groups to pander to more than likely the same adviser that says "Roll up those selves when you visit a factory or large general public gathering it makes you look like a hard worker." It is funny how chief campaign advisers/strategists that got thier man into office are well known the ones that failed are usually not.


Everyone has heard of James Carville and Karl Rove but how knows who Carters adviser was for his losing bid?That would make a great million dollar question.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Demand creates jobs. Taxes on entrepreneurs can be lowered to zero and they can all open factories but if there's no one to buy the output, it does nothing. Until the right realizes this, their economics are just as head-shakingly wrong as the left's.

The top 1% may buy a 50 yachts and Maybachs a year, but it's the much larger middle class that buys 100,000 Chevys and 36" TVs - which one creates more jobs? The 50 products or the 100,000?

Demand creates jobs. Not handouts to the rich.

Unless Obama's in office, then it's like "OMG things aren't better RIGHT NOW!"

2 things here Mookie.

First - your right - demand does create jobs - however - there isn't a question of demand - we are a consumer nation. The problem is people don't have jobs to be able to create demand - so when jobs are created (by investors) - demand also rises.

Now - as for the "OMG" comment - Obama stated he had to turn the economy around or else he would be a 1 term president. His words - and so far he has failed. Now - the thing is that one must look at WHY he has failed - and WHY the transition hasn't started yet. Obama's policies - more government spending (inefficient), increased debt, a desire to tax investors and small business at higher rates - has kept the economy from recovery. Now - the bailouts were NOT just Obama's fault - Bush holds blame there too. The QE's have killed any forward growth - so both sides share blame. However, Obama's policies of more regulation, more taxation, more spending - have failed to provide any impetus for the economy to move. This is - per his own stated standard - what makes him a "failure" on the economy.

Now - before you start talking unemployment numbers, look at the reality - the job pool has shrunk massively, people are dropping of even looking for work - not only because jobs are still hard to come by, but also because BOTH sides are sitting there handing out more and more unemployment checks. Why would people look for a job when they can get paid to sit on their tails at home? A lot of people WON'T. Others have lost everything because they have tried - for years - and can't find anything.

If X equals the "worker pool" and y equals the number of jobs, z is the unemployment rate. x/y=z

When you increase y slightly, but decrease x significantly, z becomes smaller. The "rate" goes down, but only because there are less workers. Less workers is not a good thing....

CNN quoted David Gewirtz as saying the US needed 2 million jobs created a year. That means just to keep up with population growth, we need 166.7K jobs a month minimum. Using the Bureau of Labor and statistics, 243k jobs were created in January 2012. This brings the unemployment rate down a full .2% according to their numbers. Sounds good - but when you read the full report - the actual decrease is not due to the ~78k job surplus (which 78k jobs is not anywhere NEAR enough to drop the unemployment rate .2%), but its because over 2 MILLION more people dropped out of the "labor pool"!

Anyone can point to the "decrease" in unemployment as a good thing - and it would be - but if you plugged the 2M+ people in - the rate would be significantly HIGHER - and climbing. Ignoring numbers the administration doesn't like to keep them out of the formula is just dishonest, and isn't anything to base a "recovery" arguement on. If the administration thinks it is - they are in for a huge shock in November.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Anyone can point to the "decrease" in unemployment as a good thing - and it would be - but if you plugged the 2M+ people in - the rate would be significantly HIGHER - and climbing. Ignoring numbers the administration doesn't like to keep them out of the formula is just dishonest, and isn't anything to base a "recovery" arguement on. If the administration thinks it is - they are in for a huge shock in November.

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that. It makes it pretty hard to determine how the economy is actually doing. You have numbers that look good, but those numbers omit other numbers that would diminish the first set of results. What a wonderful time to be alive.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to that. It makes it pretty hard to determine how the economy is actually doing. You have numbers that look good, but those numbers omit other numbers that would diminish the first set of results. What a wonderful time to be alive.

Actually - I was wrong on one thing - with any number over the ~166k per month, the unemployment rate would in fact drop. Just it would take 3 or 4 months at a gain of ~70k per month in jobs to make a .1% decrease. If you factor in the "out of the labor pool" - you are well above 8% still. Its somewhere around 11% - and if you want a source that actually explains the numbers - here ya go:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...-rate-is-11/3/

Yes, its a blog - but its written by a regular comtributor with professional standing and a knowledge of the subject.

However, a lot of talking heads on the right exaggerate the numbers as well. I have heard guys like Rush and Beck claim 16% of higher. How they get these numbers, I don't know - and I suspect some of them may just be "made up". Intellectual dishonesty doesn't exist on only one side, and the talking heads need to be called on to either explain their numbers, or retract the claims.

People like this:
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/bl...t-rate-more-19

Granted - just a blogger - but the explanation doesn't wash - and sorry - we have never counted incarcerated people into the equation.... What a bogus way to try and add 2% to the figure.

Another one - claiming 22% - quoting some guy who doesn't give us real numbers to back up his claim.
http://blogs.smartmoney.com/advice/2...ent-rate-22-6/

If we want to solve the problems of our nation, we have to be willing to require data from those who will "tell" us "facts". Regardless of our political views. Otherwise, we can't identify the real problems, and thus can't find solutions.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

2 things here Mookie.

First - your right - demand does create jobs - however - there isn't a question of demand - we are a consumer nation. The problem is people don't have jobs to be able to create demand - so when jobs are created (by investors) - demand also rises.

Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) is very old and isn't particularly accurate.

CNN quoted David Gewirtz as saying the US needed 2 million jobs created a year. That means just to keep up with population growth, we need 166.7K jobs a month minimum. Using the Bureau of Labor and statistics, 243k jobs were created in January 2012. This brings the unemployment rate down a full .2% according to their numbers. Sounds good - but when you read the full report - the actual decrease is not due to the ~78k job surplus (which 78k jobs is not anywhere NEAR enough to drop the unemployment rate .2%), but its because over 2 MILLION more people dropped out of the "labor pool"!

Anyone can point to the "decrease" in unemployment as a good thing - and it would be - but if you plugged the 2M+ people in - the rate would be significantly HIGHER - and climbing. Ignoring numbers the administration doesn't like to keep them out of the formula is just dishonest, and isn't anything to base a "recovery" arguement on. If the administration thinks it is - they are in for a huge shock in November.

Ok, you're COMPLETELY and TOTALLY off base here, and the reason why is elementary statistics. You cannot compare January 2012 and December 2011 figures. 2 million people did not drop out of the labor force. The difference in the figures here is due to the census adjustment.

Look at this chart and notice what happens every December:



See those dips? They're yearly population adjustments. You simply cannot compare January to December, since you're counting a YEAR's worth of population adjustment in those numbers.

This is even stated clearly in the actual BLS release of the data:

Effective with the release of The Employment Situation for January 2012 scheduled for February 3, 2012, population controls that reflect the results of Census 2010 will be used in the monthly household survey estimation process. Historical data will not be revised to incorporate the new controls; consequently, household survey data for January 2012 will not be directly comparable with that for December 2011 or earlier periods. A table showing the effects of the new controls on the major labor force series will be included in the January 2012 release.

This isn't smoke and mirrors. You can't go on indefinitely without adjusting for population changes in your data.

As your central premise is based on faulty analysis, I didn't bother to read on.

This is why you and the people you're quoting are wrong.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Actually - I was wrong on one thing - with any number over the ~166k per month, the unemployment rate would in fact drop. Just it would take 3 or 4 months at a gain of ~70k per month in jobs to make a .1% decrease. If you factor in the "out of the labor pool" - you are well above 8% still.

However, a lot of talking heads on the right exaggerate the numbers as well. I have heard guys like Rush and Beck claim 16% of higher. How they get these numbers, I don't know - and I suspect some of them may just be "made up". Intellectual dishonesty doesn't exist on only one side, and the talking heads need to be called on to either explain their numbers, or retract the claims.

People like this:
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/bl...t-rate-more-19

Again, more people without an understanding of the data and statistics and quoting the 1.2 million people disappeared hogwash.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) is very old and isn't particularly accurate.




Ok, you're COMPLETELY and TOTALLY off base here, and the reason why is elementary statistics. You cannot compare January 2012 and December 2011 figures. 2 million people did not drop out of the labor force. The difference in the figures here is due to the census adjustment.

Look at this chart and notice what happens every December:



See those dips? They're yearly population adjustments. You simply cannot compare January to December, since you're counting a YEAR's worth of population adjustment in those numbers.

This is even stated clearly in the actual BLS release of the data:



This isn't smoke and mirrors. You can't go on indefinitely without adjusting for population changes in your data.

As your central premise is based on faulty analysis, I didn't bother to read on.

And what you failed to do Mookie is read on. Had you read the report itself in full (not my post), you would have noted the following:

These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

In other words - they took 2.8Million people "out of the pool" who wanted to be working - and just didn't count them. Don't look for a job for a month and your not counted as unemployed anymore? And you claim MY premise is faulty????

They are fudging the numbers - and you can choose to look at the data and see what it says, or you can stick your fingers in your ears, yell "LALALALALALALALALA" and ignore reality because its "anti-Obama". The choice is yours.