Misinformation Peddler wrote:

Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:The economy moved into negative job growth in mid-2007. Prove me wrong if you feel otherwise, but those are the accepted dates in general circulation at this time.

LOL. Here's a great example of one of you problems, Bill. You back up your points with statements that basically say "that's what most of the public agrees on". Too funny. Given the rhetorical crap repeated throughout the media on a regular basis, of course most people can agree on something like that. They've heard it a thousand times.

Just to give you some stats to show you what I'm talking about:

May 2, 2008 DJIA peaks at 13,625.58 (up from it's most recent low in November 07 of 12980.88)
April, 2008 Employment Peaks at 146.235 million (576 higher than the previous year)
2ndQ 2008 GDP Peaks (inflation adjusted) at $13.4 trillion (up over 2% vs. previous year inflation adjusted, and up over 2% vs. previous quarter in actual dollars)

We did see a slight dip in numbers in November 07, but the dip was short, and from there we were on a rise in all three of the above economic indexes until 3rd quarter 2008, when the combination of soaring fuel prices and the housing/banking market crash pulled the rug out from underneath the economy. I'll also remind you that back in 03, unemployment peaked at 6.3%, and had come down to below 5% through the end of 07. A good example of what you hear constantly not always being accurate is that the Democrats and the MSM was calling our economic recovery from 03-on a "jobless recovery", although we had added those millions of jobs I mentioned in the last post and the unemployment rate was brought down a point and a half. Look at the actual numbers, don't listen to the chosen rhetoric, and forget about the "accepted figures in general circularion".

Another quick example of what you hear not being the truth, is that this morning on Meet The Press, Valerie Jarrett made the statement that Obama has been doing a good job fixing the economy, because a year ago we were losing 700 thousand jobs a month, but now we're not, and David Gregory let the statement slide by as fact without a single question about it. The latest unemployment report shows that last month we lost 750 thousand, which is the . Again, a net increase in the reported unemployment rate did not change, because we also lost 818 thousand people from the measured workforce.
But I'm just the right wing extremist yelling "liar" from the back row when a liberal spews rhetoric.

Moderato Electo Victorio! wrote:Forgive me for just cutting to the chase, but that's how I roll. You've been debunked...again.

LMAO. Really? You keep thinking that. You do exactly what you accuse anyone you disagree with of, and that's providing opinions, not facts, that back you up. It's funny watching you pull the same crap with Jooky that you tried to pull with me a few months ago. A source is given, and you act like you didn't even read it, and suggest his source might be otherwise. I'm pretty sure everyone else that has read this thread understands this except you, but you haven't debunked sh!t.

Have another nice day in your own little world.

You didn't prove me wrong. However, in a dedicated response to prove YOU wrong, I present the facts I've been exposed to over the last two and a half years that have led to the general consensus to which I refer:





Civilian Unemployment Rate


Frankly, I'm a bit surprised you are unaware of these facts. This is information in the general sphere, drawn from BLS stats. In each case, and pardon any redundancy, the trend of negative job creation is clearly indicated to have begun in mid-2007, fully two years before anything the current administration could have done to affect it would have taken place.

The primary reason why I was certain of this is that I have been tracking the trends, as they apply to similar trends we've seen in sales activity at Hahn RaceCraft and other companies in our trade sector. For these certain sectors of the economy, the effects of the recession were precluded by this unemployment and cessation of new job creation threshold passed in mid 2007 It is at this point that the US economy moved into negative job creation territory. So, for me, it's been much more than just internet posturing; I've been aware of this job loss issue for some time now, and have determined it's a key indicator for my sector's business performance.

You can cook your own figures any way you wish. This is the employment perspective, and its real world effect.

Now, if you still wish to argue that the recession didn't begin when I say It did at the end of 2007, I'll one-up you there too.

If you like, you can leave this alone like you have every other time I've whacked you. The most recent times are stil relatively fresh threads, so feel free to squirm enough that I can wave them back in your face.

Misinformation Peddler wrote:
The current recession was not in full swing a year before Obama took office.

According the the National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of recessions) the current recession began in December 2007.

Mathematics: January 2009 (the month Obama took office) is 13 months later than December 2007. One year = 12 months. So you are right. It wasn't a year. It was more than a year.

Of course, you could also argue that somehow, the very inauguration of Obama meant that, as of that moment, it was his problem. While it is true that it became his problem as soon as Bush fled the White House, it was far from a problem Obama caused. The nation entered recession territory before he was even nominated for his party's candidacy, much less elected, much less President.

Go ahead and elaborate on what "full swing" means if it makes you feel less beaten back. In this case, I'll define it as what you do on Bush's sack.

Think you've "whacked me again", do you?

Call what I do cooking the figures, but as I've shown on more than one occasion, a lot of the commonly used figures are the ones that are cooked. The reported civilian unemployment rate, for example, is not an accurate number (take what I mentioned in my last post regarding current unemployment rate: they claim stabilization because the rate hasn't changed, but we in fact lost 750 thousand jobs last month), because it doesn't take into account the full picture, which is why I chose the raw number of actual employed persons, which they should really be reporting. During 2007, the number of employed was still growing. As a matter of fact, in November 2007 there were actually over 800 thousand new jobs. Now couple that with the other statistics (it's better to look at more than one to get the whole picture), and it's easy to see we were not in a recession in 2007. At worst, we were a little stagnant.

Funny how you change your point after you look up some stats, though. By your original description prior to my posting of stats, 2 consecutive poor quarters. By your first chart, you can see that we had one poor quarter (Q3-07) followed by a solid quarter (Q4-07), supporting my point that it was not until 08 that we actually began this recession.

As for "full swing"? That would be when all of our economic indicators go flat and/or negative, or when one or more of them consistantly receed. Look at all of the stats, and you will see that we actually started to improve over Q3 2007, which even in unemployment stats continued into 2008.

At any rate, I'm done arguing about when it began, but it's still obvious that what the current leadership is doing is not helping anything, and yes, they can be absolutely blamed for where we are, and should be stopped from any more of their taxing, spending, and taking control of things. They need to untie the hands of the individuals and private sector, ro we will continue to remain in the sh!tter.

You're mixing it up again...this may be because you are mixed up? The Recession's start and the initiation of the Job Creation slide, while certainly interconnected, are not the same event. One started earlier than the other.

Look again...the Recession began in the final quarter of 2007. Allow me to repeat myself (something I find myself needing to do so very often here, unfortunately):

According the the National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of recessions) the current recession began in December 2007.

No, I refuse to take your Rightwing Chef figures as a superior source of information, no matter how you prepare your unwholesome stew of misinformation.

The economy began to hemmorhage jobs (negative job creation) at precisely the point where I witnessed it do so nearly three years ago: mid-2007. Despite your paranoia, there's no "anti-rightwing" conspiracy creating those figures. What created them was rising unemployment vs. population growth vs. stagnant new job creation. Your keyboard-kowboy assertions are weak and ignore the real problems. I, however, am in the real world, analyzing and dealing with the effects of these three supremely challenging factors, every day.

We've been increasing in population at a staggering rate, nearly 1% annually for over ten years. This, combined with massive imports, and the legions of lost jobs such import profiteering has caused, has put us in the employment catastrophe we find ourselves in today. Unless we shut the door against immigration and/or imports, or simply execute all the young people reaching employable age every minute of the day (obviously all unthinkable alternatives), this trend will continue. It's both heartbreaking and nearly impossible to repair.

It is NOT the result of an administration that is not even a year old, if only evidenced by the fact that the descent into negative territory began almost three years ago, and the factors causing the descent had already been in place for years by that time. It is the result of horribly shortsighted policies and rampant profit-taking throughout the last decade, and even beyond. We sold ourselves up the river, and the saddest part is this...we cannot stop what is happening now, as more and more people enter the potential workforce every minute. It's scary, dude. And your guys did it. ALL of it.






Edited 7 time(s). Last edited Monday, January 25, 2010 9:03 AM

Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:
Mr. Goodwrench I am not a fascist, not sure where you found this but um, no. I believe in the constitution and small government. The closest i come to fascist is 8 years serving for your right to make general statements, as so many do on this site. If I seemed glib in my start to this thread it was not because I had an uninformed rant to go on, I just did not give a full dissertation on the subject.

Mr. Goodwrench GT
Where I found this? Don't you remember what you wrote on your very own thread? Here you are being bothered on what gets advertised. You want to forbid and suppress openness and opposition and only want what you want, just because what is being advertised is not inline to what you believe. That sir, is part of fascism. And the kicker here, it is not even your site.
And if you contracted your self in to the military, good/bad for you... I really don't care. But you, nor any military personal protect jack $hit of any of my rights. If your recruiter, or the military brainwashed you into thinking that so you can preach it on to others, so you can feel better, or justify on what you did, so be it. But don't run crap to me about "serving for your right." Our rights have been protected because of our fore-fathers, how we interpret the laws, and courts system reinforcing it. If this country was invaded, and the US military actually toppled the invasion, then I can see your patriotic BS, but even the only time when this country was invaded by the British on this land, the military needed its civilians to win. Remember that next time you chant your patriotic rhetoric.


You sir may be slightly off in your assumption of why I dislike the ads i commented on in the first place. I am ok with someone expressing their personal beliefs. I am not cool with the content they had on their site. I do not know if you actually checked it out, however since you seem to believe it does not fall in line with my beliefs you must have. I also assume we have conversed before, maybe had a beer together and talked about our differing points of view. Taking that into assumption, I am confused on how you see my view as fascist. If anything it would be socialist or communist since I did not say we should institute reprisals against the company.

I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe something that is posted to your site is de facto consent to the beliefs contained within. As far as this not being my site, yes I know my name is not dave. As a matter of fact, I do not use some lame handle for my internet conversations. My name is quite clearly posted above every post i make. I appreciate your clearing of the confusion, I may have accidentally signed checks in someone else's name.

Putting your glib comment about the military aside for a second, the reason we needed civilians was because we were a young country with no real standing army going against the military might of the age. I guess in your opinion Obama's storm troopers aka civilian defense, funded just like the DOD is true patriotism.

On the military side, you must be extremely ignorant to not know the difference the military has made. I allow you no one has invaded the US, wait not accurate.... The fact is we do need more security on our borders so soft people like you can quote case law instead of manning up and going forward to serve. Hey it is not for everyone, you may not be one. the best thing is we have a volunteer force so people like you do not have to actually serve the country that coddles you so much. Thank god you were not born into the Roman Empire where citizenship was granted when you served.

You call my *rant* patriotic rhetoric, but thank god for it because your people elected someone who does not even see the need to place due reverence to salute the flag that represents the fore fathers and laws you speak of.

I appreciate your opinions, while I disagree 99.9995% of the time, you do seem to have some thought behind them when they do get posted.

Why do you need to call Goodwrench a "soft person?" Because he doesn't want to wave a gun in everyone's face? I don't understand why not being a warmonger makes you think someone is weak and lacks resolve.

I never mentioned anything about waving a gun in front of anyones face. I never mentioned being a warmonger. But to be critical of something you have not experience with and bad mouth it seems kinda lame.
You do not have to be infantry to support your country, you could be a medic or mechanic or hell maybe someone could fix our admin system. Fact is he mentioned the civilians in 1812, which is cool and all, but it would be a farce to say the military does not protect our freedoms, look at france and how their *military* defended them over the years.

I think you and whoever the other guy are have a good enough conversation going on from the looks of it, i wouldn't worry to much about the rest.

Besides anyone who actually has been there knows you don't wave guns in peoples face, you take that same face out from as far away as possible. Me personally, I take no joy in seeing someone else killed etc, but it is a needed evil in the world we live in. You just have to be there to understand why the comment was offensive I suppose.

If you are offended by it as well, I apologize and will send a gift certificate for some huggies or pampers JK

No, you did not mention those things. I used those terms because they apply to what Goodwrench is unwilling to do, or become. It is what he's unwilling to do or become that you appear to be deriding by calling him "soft".

So. You are the arbiter of all that is right, and we must therefore be ignorant, because you've "been there'? We have no say in what's right because we have no direct experience in being a grunt in a military environment? How does being one of millions of footsoldiers qualify you as an expert on these matters, and also thus eliminate anyone else's ability to speak knowledgeably?

You can't offend me by exhibiting your own ignorance about others. But if you take it to me with poor behavior like "that other guy" did, I may respond in kind. As I recall, that's even a military term...oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. I apparently am not qualified to use those terms. That would make me "lame".

Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:Mike Demo (Civic Eater)
You sir may be slightly off in your assumption of why I dislike the ads i commented on in the first place. I am ok with someone expressing their personal beliefs. I am not cool with the content they had on their site. I do not know if you actually checked it out, however since you seem to believe it does not fall in line with my beliefs you must have. I also assume we have conversed before, maybe had a beer together and talked about our differing points of view. Taking that into assumption, I am confused on how you see my view as fascist. If anything it would be socialist or communist since I did not say we should institute reprisals against the company.

I based my comment on your initial post. I said why it sounds like a fascist in the last response. If you retracted later to sound less like it, so be it. But it is clear that you did not accept the ad and wanted it out. Furthermore fascism does not necessarily have to do with strictly socialism or communism. Fascism attributes can be had if you want to to benefit yourself, case-in-point is here, shutting down the opposition's views by removing the ad.

Quote:

I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe something that is posted to your site is de facto consent to the beliefs contained within. As far as this not being my site, yes I know my name is not dave. As a matter of fact, I do not use some lame handle for my internet conversations. My name is quite clearly posted above every post i make. I appreciate your clearing of the confusion, I may have accidentally signed checks in someone else's name.

You complaining what gets advertised is like me complaining the colors used on the site. We have no say, whether we like it or not. Want to reduce the the opposition's ads, go premium. There's your only solution.

Quote:

Putting your glib comment about the military aside for a second, the reason we needed civilians was because we were a young country with no real standing army going against the military might of the age. I guess in your opinion Obama's storm troopers aka civilian defense, funded just like the DOD is true patriotism.

I will tell you this, in case of any invasion on to this land, "Obama's storm troopers aka civilian defense" will be trusted for defense. Heh, read the other thread on what weapons people want to have.

Quote:

On the military side, you must be extremely ignorant to not know the difference the military has made. I allow you no one has invaded the US, wait not accurate.... The fact is we do need more security on our borders so soft people like you can quote case law instead of manning up and going forward to serve. Hey it is not for everyone, you may not be one. the best thing is we have a volunteer force so people like you do not have to actually serve the country that coddles you so much. Thank god you were not born into the Roman Empire where citizenship was granted when you served.

On the contrary, I'm am well aware on what military has made. Which is why I make the comment I made. The way how those patriotic song goes, is as if your audience are some naive neanderthals. Also another thing you all forget... these so called "soft people" are paying your salary, in theory you work for us (in practice you work for business). I will quote the laws because that is a fact, it is the rules & enforcement that we live by that keeps this country civil and continues freedom that the fore-fathers wanted. As for "manning up and going forward to serve." I'm not easily duped into thinking it makes you more of a man if you go and work for the military. Besides I had goals to achieve and going to the military is only a waste of time and serves no purpose but maybe to boost your ego because you thought you did something noble. If the country needs a body in case of a invasion or what-ever reason, my name is there in the selective service. I only hope if that they use the system for defense and not offense, unlike the wars we have been doing the past 100+ years.

Quote:

You call my *rant* patriotic rhetoric, but thank god for it because your people elected someone who does not even see the need to place due reverence to salute the flag that represents the fore fathers and laws you speak of.

Please don't even take that route. That is if you are going by the one where Obama is not saluting. To pay respect to the flag, it is not obligated to put place your hand next to your head. A simple standing up and removal of head wear is sufficient. Criticizing this is real petty. Also read what Bill H.Jr wrote for Taetch in the other thread.

Quote:

I never mentioned anything about waving a gun in front of anyones face. I never mentioned being a warmonger. But to be critical of something you have not experience with and bad mouth it seems kinda lame.
You do not have to be infantry to support your country, you could be a medic or mechanic or hell maybe someone could fix our admin system. Fact is he mentioned the civilians in 1812, which is cool and all, but it would be a farce to say the military does not protect our freedoms, look at france and how their *military* defended them over the years.
I never mentioned anything about waving a gun in front of anyones face. I never mentioned being a warmonger. But to be critical of something you have not experience with and bad mouth it seems kinda lame.
You do not have to be infantry to support your country, you could be a medic or mechanic or hell maybe someone could fix our admin system.

More like 1775 to 1783 known as the American revolution war. It is farce that the military "protect our freedom." The only time our freedom was threatened in our 230+ year history was with the "Patriot-Act" and I have yet to see military take action. Lastly, I pay my taxes and I don't use not one thing that government offers. That's more support then me in the infantry, my money goes to provide the food, shelter, ammunition, military toys, and all the freaking socialist style kick-backs you all receive when you get out of the military system.

Quote:

Me personally, I take no joy in seeing someone else killed etc, but it is a needed evil in the world we live in. You just have to be there to understand why the comment was offensive I suppose.

The world is only evil because we meddle in their own lives and territory. Do you think they will take thing sitting down and lightly? If the tables were turned, would you be out having a beer with them?

Quote:

I appreciate your opinions, while I disagree 99.9995% of the time, you do seem to have some thought behind them when they do get posted.

Mike, that's the beauty of the 1st amendment, the right to hear every one's thoughts and come to a conclusion. Silence one side is only a step backwards.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Misinformation Peddler wrote:Funny how you change your point after you look up some stats, though. By your original description prior to my posting of stats, 2 consecutive poor quarters.

My good man...you're going to have to better illustrate where I "changed my point". As I mention, I've been tracking this since mid-2007. My point has not changed in almost three years; it certainly did not in the last day.