Look at the fvcking numbers and tell me I'm wrong. There are about 2 million MORE jobs than when Bush took office. The whole claim is BULLSHIT. But by all means, jsut keep repeating it.
You're full of bullshit, not the claim. If the population grows, and the population of people willing and able to work grows, the job market must grow with that population growth.
People are comparing job increases relative to population increases. You're trying to take that out of the equation for Bush and Bush only. That destroys a level comparison. You're full of bullshit for trying.
You're full of bullshit, not the claim. If the population grows, and the population of people willing and able to work grows, the job market must grow with that population growth.
People are comparing job increases relative to population increases. You're trying to take that out of the equation for Bush and Bush only. That destroys a level comparison. You're full of bullshit for trying.
No, No and NO! I am not trying to skew anything. I am just saying: The raw job number has gone UP, not down. If anything, people that repeat the 3,000,000 jobs lost "fact" are skewing in the extreme...because they make it seems like a simple, unadjusted number. Have there been losses relative to population growth? I assume so. That's not the point. The point is the rhetoric is not true.
btw, unemployment is dropping and was never high to begin with. The average figure over the past 40 years is about 8.5%. We're at what...5.8 or 5.9 right now? Terrible! Jobless recovery!
No, No and NO! I am not trying to skew anything. I am just saying: The raw job number has gone UP, not down. If anything, people that repeat the 3,000,000 jobs lost "fact" are skewing in the extreme...because they make it seems like a simple, unadjusted number. Have there been losses relative to population growth? I assume so. That's not the point. The point is the rhetoric is not true.
btw, unemployment is dropping and was never high to begin with. The average figure over the past 40 years is about 8.5%. We're at what...5.8 or 5.9 right now? Terrible! Jobless recovery!
The really stupid thing about this is that you don't have to look at these numbers at all to get the real picture. All you have to do is look around. Statistics can be made to look like anything you want. Reality can't.
i know that link is supposed to shut SDW up, but doesn't the stuff like:
Quote:
The report was rife with good news, in fact:
* The number of jobless claims was the lowest since the Nov. 1 week
* Jobless claims have remained below 400,000 -- a level most economists consider to be an indicator of an improving job market -- for 11 straight weeks, the best streak since April 2001
* The four-week moving average of the number of people drawing benefits for more than one week shrank to 3.33 million, the lowest since the fall of 2001
And payrolls outside the farm sector have grown, though slightly, the past four months, while the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.9 percent from its June peak of 6.4 percent.
kind of skew things to indcate things are doing well?
i know that link is supposed to shut SDW up, but doesn't the stuff like:
kind of skew things to indcate things are doing well?
No. No, no, no. Reality is what the Democrats say it is. The volume at which democrats make statements is the degree of correlation between reality and reality.
Refer to the Lesson of "Is" as opposed to "Is". Understanding the difference will require an open mind which many Republicans lack (as opposed to lack).
Really simple. Republicans can't understand this kind of higher order thought process, though (something in the DNA, I suspect). Here's Orson Scott Card with clarification (vs.clarification) of the Democratic Reality:
I hope that this can clear a few things up, bring the emotional level down a notch, move the Republicans a few metrification lengths of measure closer to unconditional surrender, and bring us all closer together this Holiday Season. Merry Kwanza. Big AppleOutsider Hug.
i know that link is supposed to shut SDW up, but doesn't the stuff like:
kind of skew things to indcate things are doing well?
Actually it wasn't supposed to shut anyone up. It was supposed to let a little truth into the discussion. However the title to article pretty much has the meat.
Does anyone ever notice that the only site jimmac links to is CNN Money? You have no basis for your claims jimmac. Your links are loaed with analysis rather than fact. I think sometimes you look at the editorialized title of the article and nothing else. OF COURSE the job market is not fully recovered. No one, including me, said it was. It's the last piece and always has been.
Does anyone ever notice that the only site jimmac links to is CNN Money? You have no basis for your claims jimmac. Your links are loaed with analysis rather than fact. I think sometimes you look at the editorialized title of the article and nothing else. OF COURSE the job market is not fully recovered. No one, including me, said it was. It's the last piece and always has been.
Ok SDW doesn't believe CNN. I thought this article provided points on both sides. This is a quote from you " Terrible! Jobless recovery! ". You were trying to make it sound like there was no problem.
This article doesn't say what he wants so it's wrong. This one is just stupid. Come on SDW try again. Geez!
This is very applicable : "The Stupidity is Amazing"
Last week, the campaign of George W. Bush sent out emails under the banner: ?Action Alert! President Bush's grassroots vs. liberal billionaires.? Warning of a liberal plot to ?funnel millions in illegal soft money donations,? the note called on supporters to donate ?whatever you can afford? to defeat the billionaires.
It?s further evidence that Howard Dean's supporters?building the greatest grassroots campaign of the modern era?has got them worried. They know that a united American people will defeat their special interest war chest.
So they?re scrambling to distort the meaning of the word ?grassroots? in order to disguise who writes the checks and who receives political favors in the Bush Administration.
Far from being a grassroots campaign, the President?s money machine has raised over $110 million by bundling contributions from the special interests and lobbyists who write our laws in the Bush administration. Bush?s 203 Pioneers bundle more than $100,000 each, while his 106 Rangers bundle more than $200,000 each.
Compare the make-up of Bush?s funds to the Dean campaign:
In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, 73% of their contributions come in the form of $2,000 checks?compared to just 11% in the Dean campaign.
In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, only 11% of their contributions are raised from individuals giving $200 or less?compared to an incredible 56% in the Dean campaign.
Last week, the campaign of George W. Bush sent out emails under the banner: ?Action Alert! President Bush's grassroots vs. liberal billionaires.? Warning of a liberal plot to ?funnel millions in illegal soft money donations,? the note called on supporters to donate ?whatever you can afford? to defeat the billionaires.
It?s further evidence that Howard Dean's supporters?building the greatest grassroots campaign of the modern era?has got them worried. They know that a united American people will defeat their special interest war chest.
So they?re scrambling to distort the meaning of the word ?grassroots? in order to disguise who writes the checks and who receives political favors in the Bush Administration.
Far from being a grassroots campaign, the President?s money machine has raised over $110 million by bundling contributions from the special interests and lobbyists who write our laws in the Bush administration. Bush?s 203 Pioneers bundle more than $100,000 each, while his 106 Rangers bundle more than $200,000 each.
Compare the make-up of Bush?s funds to the Dean campaign:
In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, 73% of their contributions come in the form of $2,000 checks?compared to just 11% in the Dean campaign.
In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, only 11% of their contributions are raised from individuals giving $200 or less?compared to an incredible 56% in the Dean campaign.
Last time I checked, $2000 was the maximum an INDIVIDUAL could give a campaign.
Since when are individuals "special interests?" Are 11% of Dean's contributers "special interests?"
Tune in at 11 for more doublespeak from the Dean campaign.
Senator John B. Breaux of Louisiana, who has long sought to push the Democratic Party to the center, said Dr. Dean's remark about Mr. Hussein's capture was "not the smartest thing to say." New York Times
What the fvck! Not the smartest thing to say? Fine, let me repeat it!
THE CAPTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN DOES NOT MAKE THE UNITED STATES SAFER!
How can this statement be construed as anything but TRUE! These pussy Democrats need to shut the fvck up because they have absolutely no backbone what-so-ever! How on earth do these yellow-spined idiots ever plan to win back some respect and dignity in the federal government if they don't stand up and scream, "WE'RE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
You don't cower, hide and "play nice" while the Republicans are kicking your ass all over the school-yard while complaining you're in their way! Come on!
Yeah, we're going to lose in '04 all right! Because the Democrats want to nominate a goddamn pussy instead of someone with some BALLS!
Last time I checked, $2000 was the maximum an INDIVIDUAL could give a campaign.
Since when are individuals "special interests?" Are 11% of Dean's contributers "special interests?"
Tune in at 11 for more doublespeak from the Dean campaign.
Nick
How many INDIVIDUALS do you know that write $2000 checks to political campaigns? I'm talking regular folks. I've never met anyone short of a business owner (my boss, gave it to Bush) who's ever contributed that much money to anyone.
I love how you make it sound like $2000 is a drop in the bucket when, I suspect, you'd probably consider that a considerable sum of money if it were referenced in any other context.
We have less than one percent PAC money. We also have 91.9% disclosure and 2% more of unaccounted for money with nondisclosure.
To me it looks like... politics as usual on both sides.
Of course if I were a Democrat, I could declare the 2% higher rate of nondisclosure of funds had a sinister, nongrassroots motive.
Nick
I love how you say only 2% of Bush's money comes from PAC contributions (to be exact, Bush's PAC contributions equal $1,186,155.00). Compared to Dean's PAC contributions of...wait for it...$8K ($8,100).
But, hey keep convincing yourself that everything's EQUAL!
Oh, and that 2% of undeclared Dean monies only amounts to what, $500K. That might buy one ad. One. In one state only. Maybe one state and a couple counties. It certainly wouldn't buy much ad space during the general election.
But, hey...all things are equal right. What a fvcking joke!
Now maybe, just maybe, Saddam's capture will start a virtuous circle in Iraq. Maybe the insurgency will evaporate; maybe the cost to America, in blood, dollars and national security, will start to decline.
But even if all that happens, we should be deeply disturbed by the history of this war. For its message seems to be that as long as you wave the flag convincingly enough, it doesn't matter whether you tell the truth.
By now, we've become accustomed to the fact that the absence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ? the principal public rationale for the war ? hasn't become a big political liability for the administration. That's bad enough. Even more startling is the news from one of this week's polls: despite the complete absence of evidence, 53 percent of Americans believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, up from 43 percent before his capture. The administration's long campaign of guilt by innuendo, it seems, is still working.
But, then we get ex-Clinton guy, Leon Podesta, saying STUPID STUPID STUPID shit:
"It's not just Dean, but all of the candidates who ran against the war in Iraq are going to be weakened by the events of the last few days," said Leon Panetta, chief of staff in the Clinton White House. "For Dean in particular, it makes it even more imperative that he has to make an adjustment in terms of his positions so he's not viewed as weak on national security."
WEAK ON NATIONAL SECURITY! How, someone please, convince me that Saddam Hussein in a cell rather than a spider-box makes average, every-day Americans safer. It might make Iraqi's, Iranians, Saudis, Kuwaitis safer. But, it sure as hell does not make AMERICA safer by any stretch of the imagination!
ADJUSTMENT IN TERMS OF HIS POSITIONS? Dean "gets it" and everyone wants him to fall inline behind Republicans and those wussy Bush-lite Democrats inside Washington. Why? So he can LOSE! Why would Podesta make such absurd recommendations? Wesley Clark (the true flip-flop man of this race).
Without a huge dose of adrenaline and testosterone Dems are NEVER going beat the monarchy! Period!
Go ahead jimmac, keep playing the same game. Why not. You love this one. You know, where you indirectly argue a point, then refuse to back up your "position" and deflect anyone who tries to make you do so. Oh sure, you're good a t posting links...but you never come out and actually argue the real point.
It seems to me, Mr. jimmac, that you are arguing the economy is not in a full blown recovery. If your point is otherwise, then I suggest you say so. Then we can debate.
Go ahead jimmac, keep playing the same game. Why not. You love this one. You know, where you indirectly argue a point, then refuse to back up your "position" and deflect anyone who tries to make you do so. Oh sure, you're good a t posting links...but you never come out and actually argue the real point.
It seems to me, Mr. jimmac, that you are arguing the economy is not in a full blown recovery. If your point is otherwise, then I suggest you say so. Then we can debate.
The thing is you're the only one saying it's in full blown recovery. I've backed my position with several points. You just have you're fingers in your ears and refuse to hear it! I can't do anything about that.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Look at the fvcking numbers and tell me I'm wrong. There are about 2 million MORE jobs than when Bush took office. The whole claim is BULLSHIT. But by all means, jsut keep repeating it.
You're full of bullshit, not the claim. If the population grows, and the population of people willing and able to work grows, the job market must grow with that population growth.
People are comparing job increases relative to population increases. You're trying to take that out of the equation for Bush and Bush only. That destroys a level comparison. You're full of bullshit for trying.
Originally posted by bunge
You're full of bullshit, not the claim. If the population grows, and the population of people willing and able to work grows, the job market must grow with that population growth.
People are comparing job increases relative to population increases. You're trying to take that out of the equation for Bush and Bush only. That destroys a level comparison. You're full of bullshit for trying.
No, No and NO! I am not trying to skew anything. I am just saying: The raw job number has gone UP, not down. If anything, people that repeat the 3,000,000 jobs lost "fact" are skewing in the extreme...because they make it seems like a simple, unadjusted number. Have there been losses relative to population growth? I assume so. That's not the point. The point is the rhetoric is not true.
btw, unemployment is dropping and was never high to begin with. The average figure over the past 40 years is about 8.5%. We're at what...5.8 or 5.9 right now? Terrible! Jobless recovery!
Originally posted by SDW2001
No, No and NO! I am not trying to skew anything. I am just saying: The raw job number has gone UP, not down. If anything, people that repeat the 3,000,000 jobs lost "fact" are skewing in the extreme...because they make it seems like a simple, unadjusted number. Have there been losses relative to population growth? I assume so. That's not the point. The point is the rhetoric is not true.
btw, unemployment is dropping and was never high to begin with. The average figure over the past 40 years is about 8.5%. We're at what...5.8 or 5.9 right now? Terrible! Jobless recovery!
The really stupid thing about this is that you don't have to look at these numbers at all to get the real picture. All you have to do is look around. Statistics can be made to look like anything you want. Reality can't.
Here's a little something to chew on.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/18/news...less/index.htm
Oops! I forgot you don't believe my links. Sorry but there it is anyway.
The report was rife with good news, in fact:
* The number of jobless claims was the lowest since the Nov. 1 week
* Jobless claims have remained below 400,000 -- a level most economists consider to be an indicator of an improving job market -- for 11 straight weeks, the best streak since April 2001
* The four-week moving average of the number of people drawing benefits for more than one week shrank to 3.33 million, the lowest since the fall of 2001
And payrolls outside the farm sector have grown, though slightly, the past four months, while the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.9 percent from its June peak of 6.4 percent.
kind of skew things to indcate things are doing well?
Originally posted by alcimedes
i know that link is supposed to shut SDW up, but doesn't the stuff like:
kind of skew things to indcate things are doing well?
No. No, no, no. Reality is what the Democrats say it is. The volume at which democrats make statements is the degree of correlation between reality and reality.
Refer to the Lesson of "Is" as opposed to "Is". Understanding the difference will require an open mind which many Republicans lack (as opposed to lack).
Really simple. Republicans can't understand this kind of higher order thought process, though (something in the DNA, I suspect). Here's Orson Scott Card with clarification (vs.clarification) of the Democratic Reality:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004435
I hope that this can clear a few things up, bring the emotional level down a notch, move the Republicans a few metrification lengths of measure closer to unconditional surrender, and bring us all closer together this Holiday Season. Merry Kwanza. Big AppleOutsider Hug.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Here's Orson Scott Card with clarification (vs.clarification) of the Democratic Reality:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004435
Mr. Card is a science fiction writer.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i know that link is supposed to shut SDW up, but doesn't the stuff like:
kind of skew things to indcate things are doing well?
Actually it wasn't supposed to shut anyone up. It was supposed to let a little truth into the discussion. However the title to article pretty much has the meat.
" Job market better, but far from healed "
Originally posted by SDW2001
Does anyone ever notice that the only site jimmac links to is CNN Money? You have no basis for your claims jimmac. Your links are loaed with analysis rather than fact. I think sometimes you look at the editorialized title of the article and nothing else. OF COURSE the job market is not fully recovered. No one, including me, said it was. It's the last piece and always has been.
Ok SDW doesn't believe CNN. I thought this article provided points on both sides. This is a quote from you " Terrible! Jobless recovery! ". You were trying to make it sound like there was no problem.
This article doesn't say what he wants so it's wrong. This one is just stupid. Come on SDW try again. Geez!
This is very applicable : "The Stupidity is Amazing"
It?s further evidence that Howard Dean's supporters?building the greatest grassroots campaign of the modern era?has got them worried. They know that a united American people will defeat their special interest war chest.
So they?re scrambling to distort the meaning of the word ?grassroots? in order to disguise who writes the checks and who receives political favors in the Bush Administration.
Far from being a grassroots campaign, the President?s money machine has raised over $110 million by bundling contributions from the special interests and lobbyists who write our laws in the Bush administration. Bush?s 203 Pioneers bundle more than $100,000 each, while his 106 Rangers bundle more than $200,000 each.
Compare the make-up of Bush?s funds to the Dean campaign:
In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, 73% of their contributions come in the form of $2,000 checks?compared to just 11% in the Dean campaign.
In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, only 11% of their contributions are raised from individuals giving $200 or less?compared to an incredible 56% in the Dean campaign.
Originally posted by Northgate
Last week, the campaign of George W. Bush sent out emails under the banner: ?Action Alert! President Bush's grassroots vs. liberal billionaires.? Warning of a liberal plot to ?funnel millions in illegal soft money donations,? the note called on supporters to donate ?whatever you can afford? to defeat the billionaires.
It?s further evidence that Howard Dean's supporters?building the greatest grassroots campaign of the modern era?has got them worried. They know that a united American people will defeat their special interest war chest.
So they?re scrambling to distort the meaning of the word ?grassroots? in order to disguise who writes the checks and who receives political favors in the Bush Administration.
Far from being a grassroots campaign, the President?s money machine has raised over $110 million by bundling contributions from the special interests and lobbyists who write our laws in the Bush administration. Bush?s 203 Pioneers bundle more than $100,000 each, while his 106 Rangers bundle more than $200,000 each.
Compare the make-up of Bush?s funds to the Dean campaign:
In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, 73% of their contributions come in the form of $2,000 checks?compared to just 11% in the Dean campaign.
In the Bush/Cheney04 campaign, only 11% of their contributions are raised from individuals giving $200 or less?compared to an incredible 56% in the Dean campaign.
Last time I checked, $2000 was the maximum an INDIVIDUAL could give a campaign.
Since when are individuals "special interests?" Are 11% of Dean's contributers "special interests?"
Tune in at 11 for more doublespeak from the Dean campaign.
Nick
What the fvck! Not the smartest thing to say? Fine, let me repeat it!
THE CAPTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN DOES NOT MAKE THE UNITED STATES SAFER!
How can this statement be construed as anything but TRUE! These pussy Democrats need to shut the fvck up because they have absolutely no backbone what-so-ever! How on earth do these yellow-spined idiots ever plan to win back some respect and dignity in the federal government if they don't stand up and scream, "WE'RE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
You don't cower, hide and "play nice" while the Republicans are kicking your ass all over the school-yard while complaining you're in their way! Come on!
Yeah, we're going to lose in '04 all right! Because the Democrats want to nominate a goddamn pussy instead of someone with some BALLS!
Bush disclosure
In this we see 2% of Bush campaign funds com from PACs.
His full disclosure rate is 93%.
Howard Dean
Dean campaign
We have less than one percent PAC money. We also have 91.9% disclosure and 2% more of unaccounted for money with nondisclosure.
To me it looks like... politics as usual on both sides.
Of course if I were a Democrat, I could declare the 2% higher rate of nondisclosure of funds had a sinister, nongrassroots motive.
Nick
Or you could tune in for Bush covering his butt speak.
Originally posted by trumptman
Last time I checked, $2000 was the maximum an INDIVIDUAL could give a campaign.
Since when are individuals "special interests?" Are 11% of Dean's contributers "special interests?"
Tune in at 11 for more doublespeak from the Dean campaign.
Nick
How many INDIVIDUALS do you know that write $2000 checks to political campaigns? I'm talking regular folks. I've never met anyone short of a business owner (my boss, gave it to Bush) who's ever contributed that much money to anyone.
I love how you make it sound like $2000 is a drop in the bucket when, I suspect, you'd probably consider that a considerable sum of money if it were referenced in any other context.
Originally posted by trumptman
Hey look some info from some other place than the Dean Office of Information.
Bush disclosure
In this we see 2% of Bush campaign funds com from PACs.
His full disclosure rate is 93%.
Howard Dean
Dean campaign
We have less than one percent PAC money. We also have 91.9% disclosure and 2% more of unaccounted for money with nondisclosure.
To me it looks like... politics as usual on both sides.
Of course if I were a Democrat, I could declare the 2% higher rate of nondisclosure of funds had a sinister, nongrassroots motive.
Nick
I love how you say only 2% of Bush's money comes from PAC contributions (to be exact, Bush's PAC contributions equal $1,186,155.00). Compared to Dean's PAC contributions of...wait for it...$8K ($8,100).
But, hey keep convincing yourself that everything's EQUAL!
Oh, and that 2% of undeclared Dean monies only amounts to what, $500K. That might buy one ad. One. In one state only. Maybe one state and a couple counties. It certainly wouldn't buy much ad space during the general election.
But, hey...all things are equal right. What a fvcking joke!
Edit: grammatical
Now maybe, just maybe, Saddam's capture will start a virtuous circle in Iraq. Maybe the insurgency will evaporate; maybe the cost to America, in blood, dollars and national security, will start to decline.
But even if all that happens, we should be deeply disturbed by the history of this war. For its message seems to be that as long as you wave the flag convincingly enough, it doesn't matter whether you tell the truth.
By now, we've become accustomed to the fact that the absence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ? the principal public rationale for the war ? hasn't become a big political liability for the administration. That's bad enough. Even more startling is the news from one of this week's polls: despite the complete absence of evidence, 53 percent of Americans believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, up from 43 percent before his capture. The administration's long campaign of guilt by innuendo, it seems, is still working.
But, then we get ex-Clinton guy, Leon Podesta, saying STUPID STUPID STUPID shit:
"It's not just Dean, but all of the candidates who ran against the war in Iraq are going to be weakened by the events of the last few days," said Leon Panetta, chief of staff in the Clinton White House. "For Dean in particular, it makes it even more imperative that he has to make an adjustment in terms of his positions so he's not viewed as weak on national security."
WEAK ON NATIONAL SECURITY! How, someone please, convince me that Saddam Hussein in a cell rather than a spider-box makes average, every-day Americans safer. It might make Iraqi's, Iranians, Saudis, Kuwaitis safer. But, it sure as hell does not make AMERICA safer by any stretch of the imagination!
ADJUSTMENT IN TERMS OF HIS POSITIONS? Dean "gets it" and everyone wants him to fall inline behind Republicans and those wussy Bush-lite Democrats inside Washington. Why? So he can LOSE! Why would Podesta make such absurd recommendations? Wesley Clark (the true flip-flop man of this race).
Without a huge dose of adrenaline and testosterone Dems are NEVER going beat the monarchy! Period!
It seems to me, Mr. jimmac, that you are arguing the economy is not in a full blown recovery. If your point is otherwise, then I suggest you say so. Then we can debate.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Go ahead jimmac, keep playing the same game. Why not. You love this one. You know, where you indirectly argue a point, then refuse to back up your "position" and deflect anyone who tries to make you do so. Oh sure, you're good a t posting links...but you never come out and actually argue the real point.
It seems to me, Mr. jimmac, that you are arguing the economy is not in a full blown recovery. If your point is otherwise, then I suggest you say so. Then we can debate.
The thing is you're the only one saying it's in full blown recovery. I've backed my position with several points. You just have you're fingers in your ears and refuse to hear it! I can't do anything about that.