DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on December 03, 2010, 12:04:13 PM
-
Wall Street Journal: "The U.S. unemployment rate has now been above 9% since May 2009, or 19 months. That matches the longest stretch at such an elevated level since World War II. In the deep recession of the early 1980s, the jobless rate crept to 9% in March 1982 and remained above that mark until September 1983."
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/77409/thumbs/s-OBAMA-LAUGHING-large.jpg)
-
Damn Bush
-
The President has little control over whether mom and pop hires someone.
The problem right now is that there is too much uncertainty out there for people to turn loose some cash for expanding businesses. Hopefully that will be cleared up in January.
-
And THAT can easily be argued is due to current policies either enacted, or in the process of trying to be enacted by this President and the current lame duck majority
-
Like I said the President, doesn't do legislation. And there is a lot more to the uncertainty than what is coming out of DC.
But if blaming Obama is what you want to do, have at it. The blame just won't be completely deserved. Just as it wasn't with Reagan during the last extended high unemployment period.
-
His policies are passed into legislation, and signed into law by his hand. The "uncertainty" can be squarely attributed to the policies he and the left want to impose, and the electorate that has made it abundatnly clear the repercussions. Leaving those folks you are referring to as to when and how much to start opening up their purses
Point being, that while I agree the president doesn't directly order mom & pop to hire and fire, his policies, enacted into law and being proposed by the Democrat majority are very clearly at the heart of the "uncertainty" you refer to.
Jan won't fix much either. It'll meerly bring the bus, that was careening out of control, back onto the highway, though largely running on only 2 cylinders, if that
As opposed to the left that wanted to use Bush as the whipping boy for any and everything bad, I blame the source(s), liberal Democrats, Obama, Fannie/Freddie, CEO's out of touch with the mainstream, and Rhinos who also haven't seen a Pork barrel project they didn't like....that's at the heart of my job as a Physical therapist, and has precisious little to do with just fingering Obama
-
The house will pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts across the board and the Senate will pass that same bill in exchange for passage of the New Start treaty.
Of that i am reasonably certain.
-
Unemployment -- it's no biggy. Just think happy thoughts and all will be just fine & dandy.
-
The house will pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts across the board and the Senate will pass that same bill in exchange for passage of the New Start treaty. Of that i am reasonably certain.
Glad you're so certain.
Now I'm hearing the big "fix" to the current ecominc misery and unemployment #'s, out of the Lame Duck majority is to.......drum roll......extend UNEMPLOYMENT benefits. Not tax cuts for everyone, especially the small businesses that employ so many millions, and not businesses in general, still in a quandry as to what the tax rates are going to be, facilitating their current uncertainty, but we need to facilitate those who are unemployed, to remain unemployed. Utter brilliance from messers Pelosi, Biden and Obama ::)
-
What can be done in a lame duck session can be undone in the next session.
-
Not without HIS signature....bringing us back full circle
-
Not without HIS signature....bringing us back full circle
There should be enough votes in both chambers to override a veto.
-
Whachoo smokin there Bt? Dems even still have a majority in the Senate, come Jan
-
Whachoo smokin there Bt? Dems even still have a majority in the Senate, come Jan
No kidding. So how many dems in the Senate would you consider bluedogs? What the dems lost was a filibuster proof Senate, which means the GOP can package the tax cut extensions into a bill Obama wants, like Dream or New Start.
-
Not NEAR enough to get a 2/3 overide. The House........maybe.........but highly doubtful. And Compromising to pass lesser BAD policy isn't an option either
-
i doubt he vetoes it. Raising taxes for the "rich" is still raising taxes and the next cycle he comes up for election. He's in enough trouble as it is and the only people who will really complain are the class warfarists.
-
We're talking Obama here. His arrogance is tangible. He ramrodded Obamacare and a whole host of other far left policies into this country's economicstructure, without a hint of concern to the electoral outrage that was clear for all to see. You actually think he'll adopt a mindset of "my bad....I made a mistake, I'll defer any vetos"
As I said, whachoo smokin, Bt?
-
You actually think he'll adopt a mindset of "my bad....I made a mistake, I'll defer any vetos"
Yeah I do, if that lack of veto enhances his chances of being elected to a second term.
So do you really think he is a one and out type of guy?
-
if that lack of veto enhances his chances of being elected to a second term.
I recall a certain quote along the lines he'd rather be a good 1 term president, than a mediocre 2 term one. Did he mispeak?
So do you really think he is a one and out type of guy?
He said it, not me. It's largely HIS policies he'd be rebuking. Given his current and previous track record, I don't see that happening, in any way, shape, or form.
You actually think he'll adopt a mindset of "my bad....I made a mistake, I'll defer any vetos"
Yeah I do
Well, I'm amazed if you actually believe that. I guess we'll wait to see which one of us is right
-
It's largely HIS policies he'd be rebuking. Given his current and previous track record, I don't see that happening, in any way, shape, or form.
So GITMO is closed, is it?
DADT is a thing of the past?
All the troops are home from IRAQ?
ObamaCare isn't even ObamaCare, it's PelosiCare.
Look Obama is no more Evil than Bush was Evil.
The big difference is that Obama's politics are different than Bush's. No reason to hate the guy. No reason for ODS.
-
The policies he wanted completed, and not yet a done deal have already been discussed adnauseum. It's one of the reaons his poll #'s are tanking, as the left doesn't think he's liberal enough, despite his track record that indicates such. He can't get elected without his base and the moderate middle. Currently he has no middle, and has alienated much of the base. You think him rebuking his own policies are going to bring the base out in 2012??
Gimee some of that stuff you're smoking
and PS, I don't and never have "hated the guy". That'd be yet another one of your erroneous labels you're trying to place on me
-
Gimee some of that suff you're smoking
This from the guy who turns a million into a billion at the stroke of a key. This from the guy who goes off on a rant from a spoof article about a field trip to a slaughterhouse. This from a guy who rails about government spending yet has no clue as to government accounting practices. Next thing ya know your drivers license renewal fee is just another word for tax.
Yet i'm the guy supposedly smoking illicit substances.
Project much?
-
Gimee some of that suff you're smoking
This from the guy who turns a million into a billion at the stroke of a key.
A simple error, that was quickly corrected
This from the guy who goes off on a rant from a spoof article about a field trip to a slaughterhouse.
Again, error. Plane has credibility around these parts. Even he was fooled in his originating of it
This from a guy who rails about government spending yet has no clue as to government accounting practices.
That would be your error
Yet i'm the guy supposedly smoking illicit substances.
As it relates to actually believeing (vs my simple errors that were corrected) Obama would actually allow some of his signature "accomplishments" be (got a hold my laughter here) overidden by congress in the 1st place....yea, that'd be you
-
And yet NY Times Columists (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) seem to think it quite plausible:
Sometime over the next couple of weeks, President Obama issues a statement that reads: ?Over the past several months, Republicans and Democrats have been fighting over what to do with the Bush tax cuts. I have my own views, but it?s not worth having a big fight over a tax code we all hate. Therefore, I?m suspending this debate. We will extend the Bush rates for everybody for one year, along with unemployment benefits. But during that year we will enact a comprehensive tax reform plan.
?The plan we will work on this year will look a bit like the 1986 reform plan. We will clean out the loopholes. We will take on the special interests. We will lower rates and make the tax code fair.?
-
Well, nice that you can now be compared to the NYTimes. Because we know just how credible and "fair" they are ;)
(p.s. extending the Bush tax cuts or not, was not an "accomplishment" I'd be referring to. That's basically Obama doing nothing, as they would have expired with or without him, without Congress stepping in. Accomplishments are predicated on policies he pushed...actually ramrodded down our throats. Obamacare come to mind)
-
Well, nice that you can now be compared to the NYTimes. Because we know just how credible and "fair" they are
Apparently consistency is not your strong suite.
meanwhile townhall.com is the paragon of impartiality. as if.
Either way i was talking about the tax cut extensions and ways to relieve the uncertainty on main street. and by extension abate the unemployment situation. Not sure why you would change the subject of the debate unless you had nothing to add to the current tangent.
-
Funny...I don't recall every claiming Townhall was an unbiased source. Chalk that up to another erroneous assumption, on your part, I suppose. The subject was regarding Obama policies, and his supposedly rebuking any such if the veto option was applicable. You're the one that went the Bush Tax cut tangent
-
Funny...I don't recall every claiming Townhall was an unbiased source.
So then you don't object to being compared to townhall columnists even when they get it wrong? That seems to be a change in your accountability standards.
And where did i claim NY Times impartiality. It was an op-ed ...we have been down that road before. Yet now i am to be compared to the NY Times?
Extending the tax cuts will break the logjam on growth quicker than any repeal or stoppage of PelosiCare and any other agenda item on Obama's wish list.
Ask anyone who runs a business.
-
Funny...I don't recall every claiming Townhall was an unbiased source.
So then you don't object to being compared to townhall columnists even when they get it wrong?
When a post I'm presenting from them is shown to be wrong, abosolutely
That seems to be a change in your accountability standards.
Another erroneous assumption
And where did i claim NY Times impartiality.
Never did. It was just funny that you not only pick a piece that had very little with the point being made, but it was from the NTimes to boot.
Extending the tax cuts will break the logjam on growth quicker than any repeal or stoppage of PelosiCare and any other agenda item on Obama's wish list.
Never claimed it wouldn't. Merely that it had precisious little to do with Obama refuting his own policies. And at this point, this largely irrelevent tangent is merely speculation as well....op-ed as you noted
Ask anyone who runs a business.
Don't need to, since I was never in disagreement of the premise
-
When a post I'm presenting from them is shown to be wrong, abosolutely
So are you claiming Brooks is wrong? If so based on what?
-
Nope, in fact I thought it was pretty clear what I was "claiming". Lemme copy & paste: It was just funny that you not only pick a piece that had very little with the point being made, but it was from the NTimes to boot.
-
Well, nice that you can now be compared to the NYTimes. Because we know just how credible and "fair" they are
And i suppose this post was not to be taken seriously?
What percentage of your posts should be taken seriously?
-
Apparently being provided clarification, isn't your strong suit
-
An increase of .2% in anything cannot be described as a "jump".
It may not be a good thing, but a jump is is not.
A .2% increase in Wall Street is not a jump, either. You need 3.0% for that, at least.
-
I consider it a jump, especially for those who have lost their jobs and have suffered under this administration's policies.
I'm sure it would take an unemployment rate of over 12% for you to consider it a "jump." But that's because you have your lips sutured to Obama's ass. What else is new.
-
It's indeed a "jump" for 2 reasons. 1) the administration and many of their economists were actually expecting a bump in the other direction, so for it to go negative, was quite the neck jerker. 2) IIRC, Unemployment rarely moves an entire percentage point, from 1 cycle to the next. Using Xo's parameters of a whole 3% is largely ridiculous, since under those parameters there'd never be a "jump"
-
As it relates to actually believeing (vs my simple errors that were corrected) Obama would actually allow some of his signature "accomplishments" be (got a hold my laughter here) overidden by congress in the 1st place....yea, that'd be you
So what are those signature accomplishments?
-
SOME of those accomplishments that were achieved incl:
Obamacare
Stimulus Packages
Bailout Packages (including the taking over and/or direct Governmental overseeing of multiple enterprises, from Banks, To Automobile companies, to the Student Loan Programs)
I could go on, but those are the biggies
-
SOME of those accomplishments that were achieved incl:
Obamacare
Stimulus Packages
Bailout Packages (including the taking over and/or direct Governmental overseeing of multiple enterprises, from Banks, To Automobile companies, to the Student Loan Programs)
I could go on, but those are the biggies
And which of these do you expect the GOP to try to roll back, therefore requiring an Obama veto?
-
None....they don't have the votes
-
None....they don't have the votes
They certainly have the votes in the House, and it appears they can build a coalition in the Senate that would give them those votes.
-
Reality keeps getting in the way I'm afraid, especially in the Senate. Not to mention the 2/3 vote it'd take to overide a veto. But I like your optimism
-
Reality keeps getting in the way I'm afraid, especially in the Senate. Not to mention the 2/3 vote it'd take to overide a veto.
Depends on how they go about it. We have already seen that Obama is willing to settle for less than he asked for, as the public option compromise has shown.
-
"Compromise" on core principles is not a way "to go about it". If that's what you were hinting at. And Obamacare was STILL ramrodded thru, bypassing the normal legislative process to negate any filibuster
So, reality is still your biggest obstacle in believing that Obama would actually allow any of his prodigious "accomplishments" go by the wayside, after having been passed into law, in the 1st place
-
"Compromise" on core principles is not a way "to go about it".
That is certainly what Obama, Pelosi and Reid did. And if they did it once, they will do it again.
How is that for a reality check?
-
Ramrodding is not compromising. Sorry, reality is still your enemy
Let's put it this way.....soon, when the GOP takes over majority control of the House, they will spearhead efforts to defund, if not derail much of Obama's agenda. Likely, within the 1st 6 months, we'll see which one of us is right. We'll see if Congress, which includes the Senate ACTUALLY overturns some of the Obama legislative achievements he signed into law.
And, if by some miracle that happens, then we'll see if Obama actually capitulates on those laws he signed, by not vetoing what congress sends him
And if that happens, you indeed will be right, and I will concede I was wrong
-
Ramrodding is not compromising. Sorry, reality is still your enemy
Ramrodding would be forcing the original concept, public option, single payer, a truly universal healthcare program down the throats of the American People. And that is not the reality of what happened.
-
No, ramrodding, would be pushing legislation, that had to be pushed thru the backdoors, outside of a filibuster, and despite overwhelming public opposition.
But as I said, if in June of '11, Congress, including the Senate, actually repeal some chunk of Obama's laws he's signed into place, and after that, he then declines to veto said repeal, then you will be right, and I will have been wrong
-
No, ramrodding, would be pushing legislation, that had to be pushed thru the backdoors, outside of a filibuster, and despite overwhelming public opposition.
You are talking about parliamentary proceedures. Which the GOP is sure to use when they have a majority.
In a representative democracy, i'm not sure how much public opinion snapshots matter.
Public opinion comes into play during elections, not so much during the day to day execution of legislative action.
-
No, ramrodding, would be pushing legislation, that had to be pushed thru the backdoors, outside of a filibuster, and despite overwhelming public opposition.
You are talking about parliamentary proceedures. Which the GOP is sure to use when they have a majority.
And I'll condemn the GOP if they pull the same garbage the Dems pulled with Obamacare. If a majority party wishes to circumvent both the rules in place, and the will of the public, they should be condemned and reap the electoral repercussions. They STILL won't even have that option in the Senate
In a representative democracy, i'm not sure how much public opinion snapshots matter.
Matter?, yes. Be required to be a part of the decision process, no
-
I consider it a jump, especially for those who have lost their jobs and have suffered under this administration's policies.
==========================
Oh, come off it.
It you made $50,000 last year and $50,100 this year, would that be a "jump " in pay?
.2% is not a jump. It makes no difference who is responsible.
-
If a majority party wishes to circumvent both the rules in place, and the will of the public, they should be condemned and reap the electoral repercussions.
What rules did the dems circumvent?
-
They avoided standard Senate rules of the legislative process, when they circumvented the filibuster. Before you try, yes, that has been done before, but not for legislation this important, this comprehensive, and this intervening by the Government
-
They avoided standard Senate rules of the legislative process
Since each Senate session can change the standing rules by a simple majority at the beginning of that session, I'm not sure how they circumvented the rules they set.
Perhaps your disagreement is simply with the rules they set.
-
I'm not exactly sure why we're having this conversation, or why you're defending the crystal clear legsislative process put in place for legislation the likes of Obamacare. Never has there been such massive legislation that was twisted around the standard process of the Senate, circumventing the filibuster
Perhaps it's an effort to redirect from the original issues you brought forth, in claiming how the Senate could easily turn Obama's agenda upside down while he sits on the sidelines and lets it happen, holstering his veto pin. Perhaps
-
I'm defending the constitutional provision that allows each house to set rules at the beginning of each session.
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote. In 1917, Senator Thomas J. Walsh[9] contended the majority of the Senate could revise a procedural rule at any time, despite the requirement of the Senate rules that a two-thirds majority is necessary to approve a rule change. "When the Constitution says, 'Each House may determine its rules of proceedings,' it means that each House may, by a majority vote, a quorum present, determine its rules," Walsh told the Senate. Opponents countered that Walsh's constitutional option would lead to procedural chaos, but his argument was a key factor in the adoption of the first cloture rule later that year. In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon issued an advisory opinion stating that no Senate may constitutionally enact a rule that deprives a future Senate of the right to approve its own rules by the vote of a simple majority.[10] Nixon's advisory opinion, along with similar opinions by Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller, has been cited as precedent to support the view that the Senate may amend its rules at the beginning of the session with a simple majority vote.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Changes_to_Senate_rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Changes_to_Senate_rules)
You seem to be arguing that the constitution does not apply.
-
Looks like Brooks was right:
President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed Monday to a tentative deal that would extend for two years all the Bush-era income tax breaks set to expire on Dec. 31, continue unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months and cut payroll taxes for workers to encourage employers to start hiring.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120605923.html)
-
I guess we'll have to wait for Juneish to see which one of us is right
-
Oh, come off it.
It you made $50,000 last year and $50,100 this year, would that be a "jump " in pay?
.2% is not a jump. It makes no difference who is responsible.
And yet a 3% increase in pay would only be an increase of $1.38 per hour, which would not be a "jump" in pay either. Your example was not comparable. We were talking about an increase in the unemployment rate, not pay.
It is a jump based on all the reasons that Sirs articulated.
-
What do all these newspaper headlines have in common, XO?
US unemployment jumps to 9.8 percent
UPI.com - Dec 3, 2010
Labor Department: Unemployment Jumps to 9.8 Percent
Slate Magazine
US Unemployment Rate Jumps To 9.8 Percent
NPR
US unemployment unexpectedly jumps to 9.8pc prompting recovery fears
Telegraph.co.uk
Unemployment jumps to 9.8 percent ? highest since April
Christian Science Monitor - Dec 3, 2010
Unemployment Jumps to 9.8% Improved Mortgage Rates on the Horizon?
Personal Finance Bulletin - Susie Bayer - Dec 3, 2010
This month's Employment Situation report took everyone by surprise showing a jump in the unemployment rate from 9.6% to 9.8%.
U.S. payrolls barely rise, jobless rate jumps Reuters DATA ROUND-UP Benzinga US November
Unemployment Rate Jumps Higher
Action Forex ForexTV.com - Vancouver Sun
Unemployment jumps to 9.8 percent despite upturn in business optimism
Chicago Tribune - Dec 3, 2010
U.S. unemployment rate jumps to 9.8 percent
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle - Jim Stinson - Dec 4, 2010
-
d'oh :D
-
What they have in common is that one is from the UPI and the rest are all basically rewrites.
The idea of a headline is to get the reader to read the article. 0.2% of any number is not a "jump".
-
Oh, come off it.
It you made $50,000 last year and $50,100 this year, would that be a "jump " in pay?
.2% is not a jump. It makes no difference who is responsible.
The change in numbers is larger than you're implying. 50,000 -> 50,100 would be equivalent to a change in unemployment of 9.6% -> 9.619%. A similar change from 9.6 -> 9.8 would be 50,000 -> 51,042. I would consider $1,042 to be a "jump" in pay.
-
0.2% of any number is not a "jump".
Just try telling a Cardiologist that sometime, when their patient's Troponin goes up a mere .2%
-
If you weighed 180 before thanksgiving and you gained .2% after thanksgiving how much weight did you gain?
-
What they have in common is that one is from the UPI and the rest are all basically rewrites.
The idea of a headline is to get the reader to read the article. 0.2% of any number is not a "jump".
I read some of the articles and none of those were attributed to the UPI. Even still those headlines made it past the editors' desks, and the people who decide what news we get say it was a jump in unemployment. This includes your revered NPR.
-
If you weighed 180 before thanksgiving and you gained .2% after thanksgiving how much weight did you gain?
Not much.
However, 9.6% -> 9.8% is more than a 0.2% gain. It is a gain of nearly 2.1%.
Since percentages represent ratios rather than regular numbers, math on them becomes trickier.
-
However, 9.6% -> 9.8% is more than a 0.2% gain. It is a gain of nearly 2.1%.
To prove this, go back to the original numbers - the previous period's unemployment was under 14.8 million. The current period was just over 15.1 million (an increase of around 0.35 million).
To calculate the percent increase, take the gain times 100, divide by the base number, and you have your percent increase.
(0.35 x 100) / 14.8 = ~2.3 (you get closer to 2.1 if you use the full numbers rather than rounding).
-
So the 180 lb man would have gained 3.78 lbs over thanksgiving?
-
So the 180 lb man would have gained 3.78 lbs over thanksgiving?
Yeah, about that. Enough of a one day weight gain that it would have required me to call my cardiologist had it happened to me.
(The standing orders from my cardiologist is to report a weight gain of 3 or more pounds in one day or 5 or more pounds in a week, so they can adjust my meds.)
-
You have a strict cardiologist.
I would have just cut back on my metformin for a day or two so i could take a decent crap.
Better living through chemistry dontcha know.
-
uhm
That looks normal to me.
I`m pretty sure i passes 4lbs. this turkeyday. despite salmon is supposed to be good for you. i had 4 servings with alot of mashed potato and banana cream pie(lost count how many slices).
not to mention all the stuff I nibbled on before dinner.
for got to mention it was salmon belly which is the fattiest part of the fish.