Typical of this administration, 288k new jobs in June

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As the author says, nobody disputes that temperatures have risen from hundreds of years ago. There is no controversy about that. If someone asked me a question about whether I believe in global warming, I would assume they were asking me about the controversy, not simply about whether there has been any rise in temperature over the last few hundreds of years. And I assume that is what most people would think if you asked them that question.

The question was whether they thought most scientists believe climate change is occurring, is not occurring or is evenly divided. It had nothing to do with what the question taker's opinion on climate change is. And you didn't address the point I made, either, which is that the terminology changed halfway through the op ed paragraph on this section.

If they really wanted to know if people were informed, they should simply ask people simple questions that can't be misinterpreted. Ask them who the vice-president is. Ask them who the Prime Minister of Israel is. I know those questions are simple, but I'd much rather have a non-subjective question that can't be misinterpreted.

The Fairleigh Dickenson quiz (this is the one we're talking about, right?) did ask questions like that- it asked which nation spent the most money bailing out the financially troubled nations of Europe, for example (a question that has only one right answer). Fox News viewers were more likely to (incorrectly) say the US, than someone who didn't watch the news at all. A regular viewer of the evening news was more likely to know the correct answer than someone who didn't watch news. People who tuned in regularly to NPR were the most likely to know the correct answer.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The question was whether they thought most scientists believe climate change is occurring, is not occurring or is evenly divided. It had nothing to do with what the question taker's opinion on climate change is. And you didn't address the point I made, either, which is that the terminology changed halfway through the op ed paragraph on this section.



The Fairleigh Dickenson quiz (this is the one we're talking about, right?) did ask questions like that- it asked which nation spent the most money bailing out the financially troubled nations of Europe, for example (a question that has only one right answer). Fox News viewers were more likely to (incorrectly) say the US, than someone who didn't watch the news at all. A regular viewer of the evening news was more likely to know the correct answer than someone who didn't watch news. People who tuned in regularly to NPR were the most likely to know the correct answer.

The terminology change in the op-ed was what the author's point was. His point was that what most people probably assumed they were being asked about was about the global warming controversy.

This article explains what a complete joke the Farleigh "study" was. It explains exactly how the "study" was done. By the way, the study did not identify which people got their news from only Fox News.

http://mattison0922.wordpress.com/20...coherent-mess/

Newsbusters has an article talking about some of the other supposed studies.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...-people-stupid

[joeydb]

Unfortunately, it is not at all typical of this administration:

Unemployment by month since 1948. 2/2009 and onward is Obama's.

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...06820001315034

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Unfortunately, it is not at all typical of this administration:

Unemployment by month since 1948. 2/2009 and onward is Obama's.

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...06820001315034

Seriously Joey 2009-2010? Please tell us how the downside momentum of a near economic collapse can be stopped on a dime and turned around. A Noble Prize in Economics awaits you if you do.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Seriously Joey 2009-2010? Please tell us how the downside momentum of a near economic collapse can be stopped on a dime and turned around. A Noble Prize in Economics awaits you if you do.

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

Regardless, even if I choose to concede the point, it is now 2014. It is not a "typical" state of affairs for this administration to have job growth. Quite the opposite.

And counting up part-time jobs that people need to have more than one of, and they still can't make up for the lost full-time salary of their last job, doesn't seem like something to celebrate.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

Regardless, even if I choose to concede the point, it is now 2014. It is not a "typical" state of affairs for this administration to have job growth. Quite the opposite.

And counting up part-time jobs that people need to have more than one of, and they still can't make up for the lost full-time salary of their last job, doesn't seem like something to celebrate.

So you bang the table for capitalism on behalf of the Pro-Business party and then blame the other side when jobs get shipped to China and India and H1B's continue unabated. Well played Sir, well played. My feelings are that this administration has done NOTHING to stem the tide of business destroying the economic foundation of the country but the alternative I'm afraid would have accelerated the slide towards the bottom. Heads we lose Tails we lose faster.

One thing this administration is great at is knowing the media and playing the headline game. Don't like the statistics then change how they are calculated.

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/07/man...l-you-make-it/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

It wasn't Carter's mess. The economic problems predated his Administration. Remember Ford's WIN buttons? Or him declaring inflation public enemy number one in 1974? (Okay, I don't either because I was too young- my first political memory is a Ford-Carter debate, but he did.)

From, of all things, a poster on Yahoo ("Mr Smartypants" is his nom de plume, I believe), but he's right, so here:

"The Republicans succeeded in blaming it on Carter in the public's consciousness simply by repeating over and over that it was all Carter's fault, until the media picked it up and began repeating it for them.

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's what makes me nuts about GOP in the White House- they scream "fiscal conservatism!" right up until the moment they're in the WH, then it's all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" to quote the former VP and they spend without end on giveaways to their connections (Iraq, Medicare Part D, etc.) Rinse, repeat. The only one who actually was a big boy and raised taxes because it needed to be done was George HW Bush and see how that worked out for his reelection.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It wasn't Carter's mess. The economic problems predated his Administration. Remember Ford's WIN buttons? Or him declaring inflation public enemy number one in 1974? (Okay, I don't either because I was too young- my first political memory is a Ford-Carter debate, but he did.)

From, of all things, a poster on Yahoo ("Mr Smartypants" is his nom de plume, I believe), but he's right, so here:

"The Republicans succeeded in blaming it on Carter in the public's consciousness simply by repeating over and over that it was all Carter's fault, until the media picked it up and began repeating it for them.

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's what makes me nuts about GOP in the White House- they scream "fiscal conservatism!" right up until the moment they're in the WH, then it's all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" to quote the former VP and they spend without end on giveaways to their connections (Iraq, Medicare Part D, etc.) Rinse, repeat. The only one who actually was a big boy and raised taxes because it needed to be done was George HW Bush and see how that worked out for his reelection.

I think we are reaping what was down with 'trickle down economics'. The middle and lower classes are barely even getting a trickle any more. More like a droplet or two every now and then.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's actually not quite true. Reagan did cut the income tax rates, but the revenue collected actually tripled by 1989. So there was more money coming in.

However, the government (Reagan AND the Democratically held Congress) outspent the new higher revenue level, resulting in higher yearly deficits and accumulated national debt.

They are two separate things, and the conclusion would be easier if the revenue went down by slashing tax rates, but that's not what happened. More money left tax sheltering for investments, creating jobs (here then as opposed to abroad) and boosting the economy. But we did try to win the Cold War so military spending went up, social spending has never gone down. It all adds up.

It was a net negative but not due to loss of revenue - the spending exceeded the increased revenue resulting in a shortfall. Like most years except 1969 under Nixon and that is not a good thing.