Unskewed Polling [W:536]

[AdamT]

So we need four more years of the economic policies that added 5.4 trillion to the debt, has 23 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, 1.3% GDP Growth, record numbers on food stamps, 46 million below the poverty level, and a true nanny state? I can see why you support Obama

Right, what we should do is elect the guy would be reinstate all the policies that led to those economic conditions. Brilliant.

 

[Flyersfan314]

I am surprised you guys are still talking about this. This debt is due to the recession. Obama did not spend 8 Billion Dollars. We just took in much less revenue. Most of what we pay for is mandatory spending . Over half of discretionary is defense spending.

 

[Conservative]

You want to go back the the same failed polices that doubled our debt, doubled our unemployment, crashed the housing market, created the great recession, put a record number of people on food stamps, stagnated growth, led us to two failed wars, let bin laden roam free and strengthened al qaeda. I can see why you support Romney.

Your opinion noted, GW Bush's economic results are much better than Obama's in every category so apparently you have no problem with voting for someone with a worse record than the guy you dispise? There are those liberals here who claim that the President doesn't make a difference therefore you ought to get together and figure out which one of you is right. You want to blame Bush for the economic results today and therein lies your problem.

Let me know if Bush when running for re-election in 2004 had 23 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, added 5.4 trillion to the debt, and had GDP Growth of 1.3%

 

[Conservative]

I am surprised you guys are still talking about this. This debt is due to the recession. Obama did not spend 8 Billion Dollars. We just took in much less revenue. Most of what we pay for is mandatory spending . Over half of discretionary is defense spending.

I am not surprised that you blame the debt today on the recession that ended in June 2009. You see Obama spending, the failure to create jobs, the failure to implement an economic policy that promoted private sector growth, and the current 1.3% GDP growth has nothing to do with the deficits we have today which are added to the debt?

 

[Flyersfan314]

It has been slow. Not a failure. Jobs have been created. How can you expect to get out of a recession in a couple years. It is asinine.

 

[winston53660]

I am not surprised that you blame the debt today on the recession that ended in June 2009. You see Obama spending, the failure to create jobs, the failure to implement an economic policy that promoted private sector growth, and the current 1.3% GDP growth has nothing to do with the deficits we have today which are added to the debt?

Yeah it just all magically appeared over night:roll:

 

[Conservative]

It has been slow. Not a failure. Jobs have been created. How can you expect to get out of a recession in a couple years. It is asinine.

That is your opinion and noted. It doesn't appear that leadership is something you understand. Reagan got us out of a worse recession in less than 4 years, had 7.5% GDP in 1984 vs the 1.3% today. Interesting how forgiving liberals are when one of their own generates terrible economic results.

 

[Conservative]

Yeah it just all magically appeared over night:roll:

LOL, trolling again? The debt was 10.6 trillion when Obama took office, he claimed he would halve the deficit in his first term and what he did was add 5.4 trillion to the debt through his own deficits. Apparently GW Bush snuck back into the WH and generated all that debt, unemployment,and poor economic growth

 

[winston53660]

That is your opinion and noted. It doesn't appear that leadership is something you understand. Reagan got us out of a worse recession in less than 4 years, had 7.5% GDP in 1984 vs the 1.3% today. Interesting how forgiving liberals are when one of their own generates terrible economic results.

One of your favorite sources seems to disagree with you about the '81 recession:

Employment Fell More Rapidly Than During Prior Recessions
The employment decline experienced during the December 2007–June 2009
recession was greater than that of any recession of recent decades. Forty-seven
months after the start of the recession that began in November 1973, for example,
employment was more than 7 percent higher than it had been when the recession
started. In contrast, 47 months after the start of the most recent recession (November
2011), employment was still over 4 percent lower than when the recession began.

http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf

 

[Conservative]

One of your favorite sources seems to disagree with you about the '81 recession:

Employment Fell More Rapidly Than During Prior Recessions
The employment decline experienced during the December 2007–June 2009
recession was greater than that of any recession of recent decades. Forty-seven
months after the start of the recession that began in November 1973, for example,
employment was more than 7 percent higher than it had been when the recession
started. In contrast, 47 months after the start of the most recent recession (November
2011), employment was still over 4 percent lower than when the recession began.

http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf

My point remains, it took leadership to get us out of the 81-82 recession and Reagan leadership did it as evidenced by the jobs created and the economic growth. Obama has been a failure based upon the unemployment and the poor economic growth.

 

[winston53660]

My point remains,

No it does not. It means you start off on a false premise. It means your point stinks like ****.

 

[Conservative]

No it does not. It means you start off on a false premise. It means your point stinks like ****.

Kind of like the Obama results, huh? Then as usual you don't understand the BLS data at all because bls data in 1981-82 included discouraged workers where the unemployment data today does not. Now you are a smart person or so you think, tell me how discouraged workers affect the unemployment numbers?

 

[winston53660]

Kind of like the Obama results, huh? Then as usual you don't understand the BLS data at all because bls data in 1981-82 included discouraged workers where the unemployment data today does not. Now you are a smart person or so you think, tell me how discouraged workers affect the unemployment numbers?

If you want to factor in u6 which recession do you think it will make look worse?

 

[Conservative]

If you want to factor in u6 which recession do you think it will make look worse?

Due to poor leadership what do you think? Did you truly vote for Obama and if so were these the results you voted for?

 

[winston53660]

Due to poor leadership what do you think? Did you truly vote for Obama and if so were these the results you voted for?

Dude you're hilarious.

 

[Conservative]

Dude you're hilarious.

Thanks, and it comes so naturally

 

[Fisher]

Kind of like the Obama results, huh? Then as usual you don't understand the BLS data at all because bls data in 1981-82 included discouraged workers where the unemployment data today does not. Now you are a smart person or so you think, tell me how discouraged workers affect the unemployment numbers?

They do not. Unless they have changed the model, BLS numbers are based on those either receiving unemployment or those registered with their unemployment commission seeking a job. It traditionally does not include those under-employed or given up using the Commissions as a resource or given up searching altogether. I know they were considering modeling the numbers but people had a problem with it being done that way when real snapshot data was available. As far as I know, they have not yet started modeling.

 

[Conservative]

They do not. Unless they have changed the model, BLS numbers are based on those either receiving unemployment or those registered with their unemployment commission seeking a job. It traditionally does not include those under-employed or given up using the Commissions as a resource or given up searching altogether. I know they were considering modeling the numbers but people had a problem with it being done that way when real snapshot data was available. As far as I know, they have not yet started modeling.

That is correct and that happened beginning in 1994. Prior to 1994 Discoruaged workers were included in the official unemployment numbers, not so after 1994

 

[AdamT]

That is correct and that happened beginning in 1994. Prior to 1994 Discoruaged workers were included in the official unemployment numbers, not so after 1994

Con is lying, as usual. The official unemployment rate prior to 1995 was the U5 rate which was essentially the same as the current U3 rate. It did not include discouraged workers. Discouraged workers were included in the U7 rate, which is equivalent to the current U6 rate.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Con is lying, as usual. The official unemployment rate prior to 1995 was the U5 rate which was essentially the same as the current U3 rate. It did not include discouraged workers. Discouraged workers were included in the U7 rate, which is equivalent to the current U6 rate.

And that's not all he's lying about, when Reagan was president they didn't include anyone between the ages of 16 and 24 in the U3 unemployment rate. He knows this because I've already proven it to him.

 

[AdamT]

And that's not all he's lying about, when Reagan was president they didn't include anyone between the ages of 16 and 24 in the U3 unemployment rate. He knows this because I've already proven it to him.

Yep, this is another one of those deals where he posts innacurate information, we correct him, he ignores it, and then a few months later he posts the same BS all over again, as if no one will notice. That's why I said he was lying and not just mistaken. Unless he's got some kind of memory problem. :shrug:

 

[ReformCollege]

How can your side say we better than Germany and then turn around and say we are going to end up like Greece? It makes no sense to compare a tiny country like Greece to the US. Germany on the other hand is the 4th largest economy.
The "forward" direction is the same heading as we have followed since WWII. A direction that created a middle class that was the envy of the world and got us to the moon in 10 years. That was the progressive direction.

My side? I don't pick sides my friend, I consider all available arguments and then make up my mind. We won't end up like Greece, we may just not remain better than China for very long.

I agree, which is why I support STEM education, which is the future of middle class jobs.

 

[ReformCollege]

Do you have any evidence for those assertions, or are they purely subjective impressions?

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Half of the world's 20 largest semiconductor manufacturers by sales were American-origin in 2011."
"The United States is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2009 industrial output of US$2.33 trillion."
Economy of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sigh, why would I make something up?

 

[iguanaman]

So that individual will be voting for Bush in 2012? Let me know when the economy and economic results become Obama's responsibility since obviously four years isn't it? How about those GDP numbers today 1.3%? Four more years!! Four more years!! Yep, we need four more years because the current results just aren't bad enough so we need the time to make them worse.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Sigh, why would I make something up?

A good question to ask Conservative.