What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[4est_4est_Gump]

I wonder what they'll have to use as the denominator next month to "fix" the unemployment rate at 8.2% so they can talk about continued "improvement"? My guess is that they make it 8.2%....what's your guess?

When it comes to fixing prices
There are a lot of tricks he knows
How it all increases, all them bits and pieces
Jesus! It's amazing how it grows!

 

[mercury14]

I wonder what they'll have to use as the denominator next month to "fix" the unemployment rate at 8.2% so they can talk about continued "improvement"? My guess is that they make it 8.2%....what's your guess?

You're accusing the BLS of being Democratic hacks?

Show your proof, liar.

 

[mercury14]

When it comes to fixing prices
There are a lot of tricks he knows
How it all increases, all them bits and pieces
Jesus! It's amazing how it grows!

Last month you bitched about there being too many discouraged workers and how that number was holding steady. THAT was the real barometer of the economy, not the dropping unemployment rate or the raw number of jobs per month.

Now with this report there are -200,000 fewer discouraged workers as folks are gaining hope. And big shocker - there's no mention of this formerly (yet briefly) reliable economic indicator. It's like you never even said any of this. You have no sense of responsibility for anything you say, coward.

Now what's the new economic indicator we need to be looking at? You've shifted the goal posts so many times that I'm having trouble keeping up.

 

[RightField]

You're accusing the BLS of being Democratic hacks?

Show your proof, liar.

You mean that you want me to show clear intent on the part of the BLS people when they give a huge boost to the subjective factors in the calculation of the unemployment rate? All I can point to is the massive number of unemployed, the "unnatural" number of people taken from the number looking for work and the strange decrease in the unemployment rate.

How about looking at it this way....we have fewer people employed now as a percent of the population than we have had since before Bush's economy was destroyed by Pelosi and Reid and yet, magically, our unemployment rate is down?

I'm sorry, I was wrong, it wasn't overly enthusiastic estimates on the subjective parts of the calculations by the BLS that led to this glorius result...instead....it was a miracle!

Oh happy day! If the government can continue to pull miracles out of its hat, we'll soon be done with the housing problems, the massive debt and the unemployment problem. I can't wait for the next miracle!

 

[mercury14]

So no proof? You're just making things up again?

You don't UNDERSTAND something, therefore it MUST be secret Democratic infiltration somewhere!

 

[RightField]

So no proof? You're just making things up again?

I have truth, logic and lots of numbers.

 

[RightField]

So no proof? You're just making things up again?

You don't UNDERSTAND something, therefore it MUST be secret Democratic infiltration somewhere!

No, just enthusiastic guesses on subjective estimates that provide results that defy logic (low unemployment rates while we have a the lowest level of workforce participation in a long time - far above what would be expected given the demographics)....throw in the huge increase in the number of people who are seeking medical disability to get medical-related social security benefits and you have the makings of continued miasma in the "real" unemployment picture.

 

[mercury14]

IT'S A SECRET DEMOCRATIC PLOT, BRO! THE DEMS HAVE SECRET SQUIRREL AGENTS THAT INFILTRATED THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS AND REPROGRAMMED THEIR OPERATION TO SAY JUST WHAT THEY WANT! AND NOBODY CAN STOP THEM BECAUSE I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SEE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON!!!!

I have truth, logic and lots of numbers.

You have ignorance, paranoia, and a belief that you see things nobody else can.

 

[mercury14]

No, just enthusiastic guesses on subjective estimates that provide results that defy logic (low unemployment rates while we have a the lowest level of workforce participation in a long time - far above what would be expected given the demographics)....throw in the huge increase in the number of people who are seeking medical disability to get medical-related social security benefits and you have the makings of continued miasma in the "real" unemployment picture.

Then you have no proof at all? Just guesses and your own personal estimates?

 

[RightField]

You have ignorance, paranoia, and a belief that you see things nobody else can.

There are lots of articles written on this topic. Do you want me to C&P a few? You know I'd be delighted to do that. More of the problem is that you don't read widely and are too confident in your monodimensional view of the world.

 

[mercury14]

There are lots of articles written on this topic. Do you want me to C&P a few? You know I'd be delighted to do that. More of the problem is that you don't read widely and are too confident in your monodimensional view of the world.

Hey bro, you're the one who doesn't read widely. Unless you're now suggesting you read Michael Moore's blog or Daily Kos in equal weight to your extremist conservative outlets.

I read the news, (CNN and Fox News.com) and I watch Fox News because that's mostly what's on military TV here. Very seldom do I read opinion - from either side of the spectrum.

I get the facts and I make up my own mind. This is why you and I are profoundly different men.

(and please don't bother C&Ping anything about the BLS unless it's from a press release or something neutral. I'm never going to take your sources at face value because they lie for political gain).

 

[RightField]

Hey bro, you're the one who doesn't read widely. Unless you're now suggesting you read Michael Moore's blog or Daily Kos in equal weight to your extremist conservative outlets.

I read the news, (CNN and Fox News.com) and I watch Fox News because that's mostly what's on military TV here. Very seldom do I read opinion - from either side of the spectrum.

I get the facts and I make up my own mind. This is why you and I are profoundly different men.

(and please don't bother C&Ping anything about the BLS unless it's from a press release or something neutral. I'm never going to take your sources at face value because they lie for political gain).

It doesn't look like you make up your own mind...you mindlessly repeat the democrat talking points even though most of them require significant gymnastics in a weak attempt at arriving at some sort of logical conclusion.

Here's an example...the whole Fluke (pun intended) was a White House "spin" operation to take attention away from their misguided efforts to have government dictate to Catholics that they have to pay for birth control and abortions (abortion pills) even though they perceive it as a sin....by government order. The truth will set you free. Why do they (and you) need to "spin" and deceive?

http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-oreil...g-sandra-fluke

The White House

 

[mercury14]

It doesn't look like you make up your own mind...you mindlessly repeat the democrat talking points even though most of them require significant gymnastics in a weak attempt at arriving at some sort of logical conclusion.

You're confused again. The fact that I usually support liberal policies doesn't mean I'm repeating any talking points. You're just saying what you wish was true.

Here's an example...the whole Fluke (pun intended) was a White House "spin" operation to take attention away from their misguided efforts to have government dictate to Catholics that they have to pay for birth control and abortions (abortion pills) even though they perceive it as a sin....by government order. The truth will set you free. Why do they (and you) need to "spin" and deceive?

Nope, you're lying again. You KNOW the Catholic Church does not have to provide birth control to a single soul in America. They don't even have to provide insurance at all. But if they do want to provide insurance, well that's clearly outside of the purview of religious function. At that point they're in the free market like every secular business out there. And business is legally regulated.

http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-oreil...g-sandra-fluke

Broken link. Broken logic.

 

[RightField]

Nope, you're lying again. You KNOW the Catholic Church does not have to provide birth control to a single soul in America. They don't even have to provide insurance at all. But if they do want to provide insurance, well that's clearly outside of the purview of religious function. At that point they're in the free market like every secular business out there. And business is legally regulated.

Yes, but if they do want to provide insurance, like they have for decades, they have to adapt to the government plan or terminate their insurance program. I call that tyranny and that's what these democrats are all about...they're going to force us to adapt to the things they believe or they'll use the force of government to make us change. In some cases, that sort of force is needed (military secrets), but is it really needed in healthcare? I think not and it's one of a thousand reasons to vote these people out come November.

The fact that you and the Democrats are trying to hide, mis-direct and "spin" this discussion with orchestrated efforts like Ms. Fluke is another reason that Democrats should be voted out.

 

[mercury14]

Yes, but if they do want to provide insurance.

So then they're not forcing the Catholic Church to provide birth control after all, eh? Thank you for coming to that realization. Now why did it take you so long?

they have to adapt to the government plan or terminate their insurance program. I call that tyranny and that's what these democrats are all about...

It's insurance regulation, not religion regulation. The Catholic Church has nothing to do with it because the Catholic faith has nothing to do with insurance. If providing insurance was an actual component of Catholicism then you would have a point. But what they're doing is CHOOSING to engage in activities outside their religion to engage in free-market commerce. And that's rightfully and Constitutionally regulated.

they're going to force us to adapt to the things they believe or they'll use the force of government to make us change. In some cases, that sort of force is needed (military secrets), but is it really needed in healthcare? I think not and it's one of a thousand reasons to vote these people out come November.

You're free to your opinion. Mine is that regulation is needed because history tells us that the free market does not provide adequate health care access to Americans. Inadequate coverage would be one thing if it was easy for Americans to go out and buy more coverage out of pocket on their own. But health care costs are so high (and increasing) that paying out of pocket is prohibitively expensive for many people.

The fact that you and the Democrats are trying to hide, mis-direct and "spin" this discussion with orchestrated efforts like Ms. Fluke is another reason that Democrats should be voted out.

No, the mis-direction and lying about Ms Fluke is coming from the right. Just listen to your own media. She wants taxpayers to pay for her birth control? WTF? She's on a private plan. Talk about misdirection and false re-framing.

She wants to get paid for sex?

She wants to get paid to go on a sexual rampage?

She shouldn't have sex if she's not married?

I'm not an expert on this and certainly haven't been following it closely, but I can usually assess situations objectively.

You're actually more full of shit than anyone on this forum.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

It's over for the Clown. You can thank Obamunism for these numbers Merc:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

"With the perception growing that he will be the GOP nominee, Romney leads President Obama by five points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Today's numbers show Romney at 48%, Obama at 43%. That’s Romney’s largest lead since December. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update)."

"If Santorum is the Republican nominee, he is up by one point over the president, 46% to 45%. This is the second time since polling began in 2011 that Santorum has had a slight lead over Obama. Romney is the only other candidate to lead the president more than one time in the polls. See tracking history for Obama vs. all four Republican candidates."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

What about legitimate polls and not ones that openly admit they oversample elderly conservatives?

 

[unregistered]

 

[garbage can]

What about legitimate polls and not ones that openly admit they oversample elderly conservatives?

Yeah you're right. Most peeps know that conservative polsters outnumber liberal polsters about 10 : 1.............

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yeah you're right. Most peeps know that conservative polsters outnumber liberal polsters about 10 : 1.............

Rasmussen polls landlines only, which excludes 31% of the United States and favors an older white men demographic. That's why it's known as Republican-friendly and the only pollster that the "better America fail than the niggar succeed" folks like Vetteman quote with any regularity.

 

[mercury14]

You mean the media polls that cover for Obama? Rasmussen is a professional polling organization.

Which ones do that? And prove how they do it.

 

[mercury14]

Election 2012: The Core Four States
Obama Leads Romney, Santorum in Core Four States (FL, NC, OH, VA)

Friday, March 09, 2012

President Obama now holds modest leads over Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in combined polling of key swing states Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. The numbers mark a shift from late February when Obama was tied with both candidates in the four states.

Obama is now ahead of the former Massachusetts governor 46% to 42%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate in this matchup, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...our_states/election_2012_the_core_four_states

That's with over-representing conservatives in their poll.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Which ones do that? And prove how they do it.

Comrade Vetteman no longer requires evidence...he knows the Pravda (truth)!

 

[RightField]

So then they're not forcing the Catholic Church to provide birth control after all, eh? Thank you for coming to that realization. Now why did it take you so long?

It's insurance regulation, not religion regulation. The Catholic Church has nothing to do with it because the Catholic faith has nothing to do with insurance. If providing insurance was an actual component of Catholicism then you would have a point. But what they're doing is CHOOSING to engage in activities outside their religion to engage in free-market commerce. And that's rightfully and Constitutionally regulated.

Why are the democrats forcing this massive change? Why are they using a backhanded way to force the Catholic Church into this?

1) Is there a problem with people getting birth control pills now?

I haven't heard or read much about women who have had problems with access to contraception. Have you?

2) The Catholic Church preaches that life is precious and members of the church shouldn't use contraception or abortion.

Of course, I would guess that most members of the church who need contraception get it and use it regardless of the Church's position. Have we heard of any who been having a problem getting contraception? Has there been an outcry from Catholics about problems getting contraception even though Catholic affiliated organizations don't cover it? I think not. There's probably access to abortion and the abortion pill too.

3) The Catholic Church has been preaching against contraception for centuries without interference from the U.S. Government. It is immaterial whether followers choose to listen or even agree, the fact is that it has been a long-standing pillar of the church that life is precious and shouldn't be adversely affected by contraception or abortion (or abortion pills).

4) Contraception has not been expensive. If it's widely available and it's inexpensive, then there must not be a current societal problem about it, right? Can you think of a pressing problem around contraception or the abortion pill that's recently surfaced?

5) The Government already provides lots of services around family planning and has programs to help when help is needed in both contraception and abortion (and the abortion pill). If fact, the government has a long history of support when and where it's needed and done it in such a way that it didn't cause conflict with the Catholic Church.

6) If Contraception is neither difficult to get nor a burden to anyone's pocketbook and there are already lots of government programs that have been established for many years, then why is the administration making an issue out of it? Why are they making free contraception a "Government Requirement?" Why is it now a "right?". Why is free access to the abortion pill also becoming a "right?" Why is the government in the middle of this?

This is a new "entitlement" (people are entitled to it), given that we have an exploding debt and a deficit of over a trillion dollars each of the last three years that are threatening our economy and our place in the world, is it wise to be adding a new entitlement?

Is this something that we should put in our founding documents? Should we write ...everyone "has the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and free birth control pills? (and abortion pills)"

7) Why are they forcing the Catholic Church do something that is counter to it's centuries of teaching? Why did this administration decide to force the Catholic Church into this position now after centuries of the US Government not taking a position on it? What has changed?

8) What has this administration discovered that no previous administration has discovered that has motivated them to force the Church to submit to it's will where there's no pressing social issue or pressing "need" to precipitate the change?

9) If this administration can force the Catholic Church to submit to its will on a topic where there hasn't been a pressing social issue of availability or cost, what's next? If they can force the Catholic Church to do something they view as a sin and against centuries of their teaching without a compelling or pressing "need" evident, what might they decide to make you do?

Are these the actions of a revolutionary new form of Government that was formed a couple hundred years ago which was originally intended to be a 'servant' to the people rather than it's master? Do you have a dearly held family value or view that the government may want to force you to change?

It seems to me that the White House "spin" machine's parading of Ms. Fluke around the news media is simply a distraction that doesn't have much to do with the core point of this issue.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You mean that you want me to show clear intent on the part of the BLS people when they give a huge boost to the subjective factors in the calculation of the unemployment rate? All I can point to is the massive number of unemployed, the "unnatural" number of people taken from the number looking for work and the strange decrease in the unemployment rate.

How about looking at it this way....we have fewer people employed now as a percent of the population than we have had since before Bush's economy was destroyed by Pelosi and Reid and yet, magically, our unemployment rate is down?

I'm sorry, I was wrong, it wasn't overly enthusiastic estimates on the subjective parts of the calculations by the BLS that led to this glorius result...instead....it was a miracle!

Oh happy day! If the government can continue to pull miracles out of its hat, we'll soon be done with the housing problems, the massive debt and the unemployment problem. I can't wait for the next miracle!

Don't even try to have a rational discussion.

Just bookmark this for when they go batshit crazy under the Romney administration over how the numbers are LIES!



It was the very same thing under Bush.