U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[KingHorse]

That's the thing, I realize the immediate benefit, but over the long haul... I do not feel it's worth the damage.

There are environmental issues with every source of power I'm aware of though. Literally all of them. Most are more gentle than coal, but the bad stuff exists. There has to be a balance between "Don't fucking kill people/the environment" and "Lights and heat are good!" My balance point lies somewhere between nuclear power and wind power. Plenty of power, mostly clean and harmless, pretty cheap.

[FusedMass]

According to HuffPost the number is really 6.8 percent. Interesting stuff.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-g...b_1942873.html

[Grizzly Willy]

That's what they could have been, not what they are.

Obviously, these numbers are complete speculation. We'll never know for sure what would have happened had different decisions been made, but we can bet the jobs numbers would look a good bit better.

[KingHorse]

According to HuffPost the number is really 6.8 percent. Interesting stuff.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-g...b_1942873.html

You didn't read the article. You really should have.

[Felya]

That's what they could have been, not what they are.

It's right about this:

"The risk of a half-decent jobs report like September's is that it might cause policymakers to lose sight of how far the job market still has to go. The bulk of the jobs picked up in the September report were part-time jobs. Many of the jobs created in the recovery have been lower-wage jobs. The unemployment rate among those ages 18 to 29 is 11.8 percent. African-Americans are suffering a 13.4 percent unemployment rate. More than 1.7 million Americans have been unemployed for 99 weeks or more."

This is not an unusual spike people seem to think. It's still a crawl and we should demand better.

[Grizzly Willy]

I think I understand what you were talking about earlier now.

[Felya]

I think I understand what you were talking about earlier now.

Yeah, that's why I can't understand all the talk of the numbers being too good to be true. I am voting Obama and not only do not think it's too good, I wouldn't call it better than fair. Right direction, wrong speed...

[The Riddler]

I am voting Obama and not only do not think it's too good, I wouldn't call it better than fair. Right direction, wrong speed...

Indeed. By the amount of braggadoccio Obama made on the subject with all the "laser-like focus" and summits and Quantitative Easings and bailouts and money thrown at the losers he picked (loved that line from Mitt) the U3 number should have been 7.8 over 2 years ago and should be more like 5% to 6% today at the very worst. 7.8% - even if it isn't just a number shennanigan - isn't much to brag about.

[Felya]

Indeed. By the amount of braggadoccio Obama made on the subject with all the "laser-like focus" and summits and Quantitative Easings and bailouts and money thrown at the losers he picked (loved that line from Mitt) the U3 number should have been 7.8 over 2 years ago and should be more like 5% to 6% today at the very worst. 7.8% - even if it isn't just a number shennanigan - isn't much to brag about.

The indeed is meaningless, when by the time you are done with your tirade, you are back to conceding that the numbers need shenanigans for them to be valid. You cannot have it both ways, claim that the numbers are as bad as you think, while thinking they are too good to be real. It has nothing to do with number shennanigans, no even about it...

Also, the losers Romney is picking are considerably different than the losers Obama is picking with programs that have been in existance before he was born. Corporations being people, is a little different my friend...

[FusedMass]

Obama vs Trump

[Wells]

Indeed. By the amount of braggadoccio Obama made on the subject with all the "laser-like focus" and summits and Quantitative Easings and bailouts and money thrown at the losers he picked

Wrong president broski.

[Felya]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=p-CkBrQfKMA&NR=1
Obama vs Trump

I'd buy it...

---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 04:29 AM ----------

Wrong president broski.

Oh, that's what he meant by losers. We technically do not know exectly who the losers Bush picked, because the first TARP did not include any accountability. Unlike the loan with interest that Obama bailed out the automotive industry, the initial Bush TARP never saw a return on it's buy out of 'toxic' stock from banks.

Obama came into office with Bushes tarp spending billions on the very stocks that tanked the market. My guess, this is why Romney does not show his tax returns for 2008 or 2009. I do not see how a man that makes as much as Romney does through capital gains, saw no benefit from TARP.

[Grizzly Willy]

FusedMass, aren't you going to comment on the fact that you didn't actually read the article you posted? I know posters aren't bound to respond to posts in any way, but avoiding the discussion doesn't help.

[FusedMass]

FusedMass, aren't you going to comment on the fact that you didn't actually read the article you posted? I know posters aren't bound to respond to posts in any way, but avoiding the discussion doesn't help.

I thought you ignored me? remember when you pmed me a week ago and told me so?

[Felya]

Is it conceivable that Romney reported over 10.5 million in earnings from capital gains in 2008-2010, but not be effected by TARP? Is there a chance he had no money in any of the top 9 banks in 2008, but report anywhere near 10.5 million in capital gains?

---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 04:45 AM ----------

I thought you ignored me? remember when you pmed me a week ago and told me so?

You sure? It doesn't sound like he cares enouph to do that. I'd check to be sure it was him.

[Grizzly Willy]

I thought you ignored me? remember when you pmed me a week ago and told me so?

I'm a sucker for breaking that in case the person rights themselves. If a person shows themselves to be reasonable I will take them off, and I like to offer people a second chance. Also, I wasn't the only one who called you out on your false interpretation.

[FusedMass]

I'm a sucker for breaking that in case the person rights themselves. If a person shows themselves to be reasonable I will take them off, and I like to offer people a second chance. Also, I wasn't the only one who called you out on your false interpretation.

To respond to his questions.

I disagree.

[Grizzly Willy]

So you shouldn't have read the article? I'm talking about the job numbers article that you read as saying that the numbers are different than they are being reported, when the article actually said that the numbers should be different, but they're not. I think the article raises some good points, and I am glad you posted it. I'm just hoping that you realize that your interpretation of it was incorrect.

[FusedMass]

So you shouldn't have read the article? I'm talking about the job numbers article that you read as saying that the numbers are different than they are being reported, when the article actually said that the numbers should be different, but they're not. I think the article raises some good points, and I am glad you posted it. I'm just hoping that you realize that your interpretation of it was incorrect.

Mitt claims the actual numbers are 11 percent.

Job Report says 7.8

Why can't I claim they are lower if Mitt can?

[Grizzly Willy]

You're saying "why can't I lie if he can". That makes you as bad as he is. Look, the article claims that the numbers should 6.8%, not 7.8%, given what Obama was trying to do. However, because he was stifled and his initiatives weren't allowed to be implemented fully, they aren't at 6.8%. So not only are you lying about the numbers, you're saying that this author is also making these claims. You are being disingenuous to an absurd degree.