Irish Times Tea Party Article

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Try harder.

Much, harder.

I'll try an ingot harder, how about

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469331075476058.html#project%3DJOBSDELTA10%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

That from the same link from the same google that you just tried to mock.

Again, I respectfully ask that you support your claim, that the Economy of the United States is in a stronger position than it was than on January 20th, 2009. or 2008, for that matter.

I should advise you however I smell a certain prejudice oozing out of your posting, like you assume I'm some sort of Liberal-bashing FOX-worshipping neo-con and not an Independent that voted President Obama into office. All I'm asking you is a simple question, that you persist in evading.

If you think I have some sort of hidden agenda in asking the question: I sure as hell don't. I'm just unemployed, and get mildly curious when someone tells me that somehow things are better than they have been.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

I'll try an ingot harder, how about

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469331075476058.html#project%3DJOBSDELTA10%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

That from the same link from the same google that you just tried to mock.

<snip>

And what point are you trying to make by linking me to that?

Was it the sub-headline about the 54,000 job losses?

I should advise you however I smell a certain prejudice oozing out of your posting, like you assume I'm some sort of Liberal-bashing FOX-worshipping neo-con and not an Independent that voted President Obama into office. All I'm asking you is a simple question, that you persist in evading.

I am actually well aware of your leanings, my points to you have been to investigate the figures properly. I have not lambasted you, or set out to make you believe, that I am criticising them.

You need to get that sense of smell checked.

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

And what point are you trying to make by linking me to that?

Was it the sub-headline about the 54,000 job losses?

You may need to have your flash player installed, I was referring to the interactive graphic display of US Economic Job Losses (and gains) by industry, beginning from Jan 08. Allow the page time to load.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

You may need to have your flash player installed, I was referring to the interactive graphic display of US Economic Job Losses by industry, beginning from Jan 08.

I have watched that animation, even before you linked me to it.

At what point did I mention January 2008? This is October 2010.

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I have watched that animation, even before you linked me to it.

At what point did I mention January 2008? This is October 2010.

I didn't say you did. I just summarize that the data in the link begins at that time.

However you did assert a time frame beginning from November 2, 2008:

kaiser sauze wrote:

Uhm, your economy (are you even in The US?) is on a more solid footing than it was when he was elected.

I'll ask for what feels like a 4th time: from November 2008 (when 'he was elected'), how do you feel that the Economy is on a more solid footing now than it was then?

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote:

I didn't say you did. I just summarize that the data in the link begins at that time.

However you did assert a time frame beginning from November 2, 2008

True, but you were attempting to discredit my claim about private sector job growth, a claim which was subsequently validated.

I'll ask for what feels like a 4th time: from November 2008 (when 'he was elected'), how do you feel that the Economy is on a more solid footing now than it was then?

I'm just going to brush you off by asking you this: are you going to try and tell me-and boards.ie-that The US economy is in worse shape than it was in November 2008?

Seriously, stop it; because I am not going to go into why such a claim would be absurd. I am not here to give free economics lessons to people who are not prepared to do a little research.

If you find my method of discussion irritating, just block me and don't worry about it. I certainly am not.

snow scorpion

Overheal wrote: »

You say private sector job growth has been on the increase for the last 6 months, yet the national rate of unemployment remains higher now than when the president took office...

The number you have to keep in mind with job growth is 150,000 per month. That's the number of new jobs that must be created each month to keep the unemployment rate where it is. Create fewer than 150,000 new jobs and the unemployment situation gets worse.

Obama's problem is he thinks Keynesian economics has a place in the real world. He doesn't realize it should stay in the halls of academia where it can be discussed to death by "intellectuals" who don't have to deal with the real world.

Keynesian economics is like communism: it works in theory; it fails in reality.

Lockstep

snow scorpion wrote: »

Obama's problem is he thinks Keynesian economics has a place in the real world. He doesn't realize it should stay in the halls of academia where it can be discussed to death by "intellectuals" who don't have to deal with the real world.

Keynesian economics is like communism: it works in theory; it fails in reality.

And what 'real world' economic system would you prefer? I find it fairly irritating when attempts are made to characterize Keynesianism as some sort of ivory-tower theory with no place in reality, given Keynes' work experience both in the public sector and the private sector. Keynes is an economist who's theories have actually been put into practice before; his work is as a policy maker rather than academic economics.

Keynesianism was tried to varying degrees in post WWII Europe, worked extremely well (although it was reliant on cheap oil, meaning that the oil crisis were extremely damaging)
The 30 years of Keynesianism was so succesful in France, that it's fondly recalled as a golden age of of rampant economic growth (Les Trentes Glorieuses) It's certainly not perfect but to try and brush it off as something akin to Communism is ridiculous.

Also, did you honestly just equate Keynesianism with communusm (Marxist economics)

msteiner

Gijoe wrote: »

They are ALL like that. Neo-Right wing, Foxnews watching, no-nothing about the world outside my own town, nutjobs

Well, I'm a Tea Partier and I am not like that at all! Thanks again for generalizing about something you obviously know nothing about at all. I am NOT a neocon, I do NOT like George W. Bush, I do NOT watch Fox News, I do NOT just sit in my own town for my entire life, I am NOT an interventionist, I do NOT support the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, and I do NOT think that Obama is a communist or muslim.

I am a libertarian constitutionalist who believes in small social and economic government that doesn't prop up corporations and elitists.

You're just as bad as a racist saying some completely outlandish and false statement as, "all muslims are terrorists," or, "all African Americans are idiots." Now I want you RIGHT NOW to take back the statement IN COMPLETENESS AND FULLNESS BECAUSE I TAKE HUGE OFFENSE TO IT!

Denerick

msteiner wrote: »

Well, I'm a Tea Partier and I am not like that at all! Thanks again for generalizing about something you obviously know nothing about at all. I am NOT a neocon, I do NOT like George W. Bush, I do NOT watch Fox News, I do NOT just sit in my own town for my entire life, I am NOT an interventionist, I do NOT support the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, and I do NOT think that Obama is a communist or muslim.

I am a libertarian constitutionalist who believes in small social and economic government that doesn't prop up corporations and elitists.

You're just as bad as a racist saying some completely outlandish and false statement as, "all muslims are terrorists," or, "all African Americans are idiots." Now I want you RIGHT NOW to take back the statement IN COMPLETENESS AND FULLNESS BECAUSE I TAKE HUGE OFFENSE TO IT!

Generally when people have such precious reactions to statements on the internet there is a good chance that the original statement that caused such offence may hold a great deal of truth.

southsiderosie

msteiner wrote: »

Well, I'm a Tea Partier and I am not like that at all! Thanks again for generalizing about something you obviously know nothing about at all. I am NOT a neocon, I do NOT like George W. Bush, I do NOT watch Fox News, I do NOT just sit in my own town for my entire life, I am NOT an interventionist, I do NOT support the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, and I do NOT think that Obama is a communist or muslim.

I am a libertarian constitutionalist who believes in small social and economic government that doesn't prop up corporations and elitists.

You're just as bad as a racist saying some completely outlandish and false statement as, "all muslims are terrorists," or, "all African Americans are idiots." Now I want you RIGHT NOW to take back the statement IN COMPLETENESS AND FULLNESS BECAUSE I TAKE HUGE OFFENSE TO IT!

Whoa, take a deep breath there.

Not all Tea Partiers are ignorant. But as much as people like to talk about it as a "headless movement", many of the public leaders of the movement (some of whom are carpetbagging) and certainly MANY of the candidates identified as "Tea Party candidates" are shockingly ignorant and really quite embarrassing.

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

True, but you were attempting to discredit my claim about private sector job growth, a claim which was subsequently validated.

I'm just going to brush you off by asking you this: are you going to try and tell me-and boards.ie-that The US economy is in worse shape than it was in November 2008?

No, I am not. I'm not trying to discredit anything. As I told you, I just want an answer to the question. I'm not trying to claim anything. But you're trying to claim something, and I just wanted to hear you credit it. Welcome to debate: I'm sorry if you find it offensive that someone would ask you to back up something you said, without construing it as an attack on your intelligence. I only asked you to be rational and answer the question without pretense.

Seriously, stop it; because I am not going to go into why such a claim would be absurd. I am not here to give free economics lessons to people who are not prepared to do a little research.

Research on a claim for which you have provided little basis. You referred to only one document which while indicating marginal sector growth also displayed yet more unemployment overall. The economy is not better when simply one sector is better. And which Private Sector are we talking about? Medical? Manufacturing? And using the same animated graph from the same article you used to make your point, how do these marginal tick-ups in private sector job growth indicate that the economy is as of yet back on its feet? If the Economy is indeed back on it's feet, this is insufficient information to come to that conclusion. 2% Growth in Q3 does not a stable economy make. So I'm just curious what metric you are using. Because from what you've given me I don't have enough information to conclude that the economy is better; anymore than I have enough data to conclude that the economy is worse off. But with regard to Unemployment figures, against job growth even, the evidence leans in favor of Not.

Overheal

msteiner wrote: »

Well, I'm a Tea Partier and I am not like that at all! Thanks again for generalizing about something you obviously know nothing about at all. I am NOT a neocon, I do NOT like George W. Bush, I do NOT watch Fox News, I do NOT just sit in my own town for my entire life, I am NOT an interventionist, I do NOT support the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, and I do NOT think that Obama is a communist or muslim.

I am a libertarian constitutionalist who believes in small social and economic government that doesn't prop up corporations and elitists.

You're just as bad as a racist saying some completely outlandish and false statement as, "all muslims are terrorists," or, "all African Americans are idiots." Now I want you RIGHT NOW to take back the statement IN COMPLETENESS AND FULLNESS BECAUSE I TAKE HUGE OFFENSE TO IT!

Denerick wrote: »

Generally when people have such precious reactions to statements on the internet there is a good chance that the original statement that caused such offence may hold a great deal of truth.

Or it has something to do with him being indiscriminately lumped in with bigots and racists because of an activist affiliation. Similar to reading the After Hours rabble prattle on about Americans.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

No, I am not. I'm not trying to discredit anything. As I told you, I just want an answer to the question. I'm not trying to claim anything. But you're trying to claim something, and I just wanted to hear you credit it. Welcome to debate: I'm sorry if you find it offensive that someone would ask you to back up something you said, without construing it as an attack on your intelligence. I only asked you to be rational and answer the question without pretense.
Research on a claim for which you have provided little basis. You referred to only one document which while indicating marginal sector growth also displayed yet more unemployment overall. The economy is not better when simply one sector is better. And which Private Sector are we talking about? Medical? Manufacturing? And using the same animated graph from the same article you used to make your point, how do these marginal tick-ups in private sector job growth indicate that the economy is as of yet back on its feet? If the Economy is indeed back on it's feet, this is insufficient information to come to that conclusion. 2% Growth in Q3 does not a stable economy make. So I'm just curious what metric you are using. Because from what you've given me I don't have enough information to conclude that the economy is better; anymore than I have enough data to conclude that the economy is worse off. But with regard to Unemployment figures, against job growth even, the evidence leans in favor of Not.

*sigh*

You do realise that The US economy shed several million jobs in the first few months of Obama's presidency? Of course the bloody unemployment rate rose, I never claimed it didn't during that time.

Did I ever claim that unemployment overall was less now than it was then?

Did I ever claim that based solely on private sector job-growth that The US economy is on a more stable footing?

Welcome to debate, indeed. The one where words are put in your mouth.

You say private sector job growth has been on the increase for the last 6 months, yet the national rate of unemployment remains higher now than when the president took office

I missed this ignorance the first time round...

Have you failed the notice the turnaround? Does the last part of the graph mean nothing to you? The trend that is beginning?

You compare the rate now to when he took office....it was several months before he got his stimulus package through (y'know, the $787Bn bill that prevented a depression?) Your comparison is very short-sighted and unfair.

Overheal

Did I ever claim that based solely on private sector job-growth that The US economy is on a more stable footing?

Actually you did:

Uhm, your economy (are you even in The US?) is on a more solid footing than it was when he was elected.

Private jobs have been growing for the last 6months+, this under the most 'anti-business' president ever.

Have you failed the notice the turnaround?

On a personal level, having lost my job in the last few months, after earning one in Q2 2009 of all places, I'd have to say I sure have.

Your comparison is very short-sighted and unfair.

I don't think its unfair, rather a reflection that it's too soon to tell if it's turned around or not. Don't get me wrong the trickle down back from 8m unemployed is promising, but its also fluctuating slightly, and we have yet to see if its only seasonal.

Whether or not the Stimulus was effective I'd like to think that it was, but thats the sort of post-game analysis we won't see surface for another year or two. I'll feel safer when Manufacturing job growth/loss is flipped around on its head (or on its feet, however you want to look at it)

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

Actually you did:

Uhm, your economy (are you even in The US?) is on a more solid footing than it was when he was elected.

Private jobs have been growing for the last 6months+, this under the most 'anti-business' president ever.

On a personal level, having lost my job in the last few months, after earning one in Q2 2009 of all places, I'd have to say I sure have. I don't think its unfair, rather a reflection that it's too soon to tell if it's turned around or not. Don't get me wrong the trickle down back from 8m unemployed is promising, but its also fluctuating slightly, and we have yet to see if its only seasonal.

Whether or not the Stimulus was effective I'd like to think that it was, but thats the sort of post-game analysis we won't see surface for another year or two. I'll feel safer when Manufacturing job growth/loss is flipped around on its head (or on its feet, however you want to look at it)

meh

I suppose I could have put a "For example,..." in front of the statement about private sector jobs, but that's just semantics really.

I'm delighted to hear you say "it's promising", you just need to delve a bit deeper and you might even change to 'the outlook is positive'.

Manufacturing job growth will not significantly contribute to the recovery, a lot will be in services and, if he can get a significant investment in alternative energies through, the construction industry.

mgmt

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Manufacturing job growth will not significantly contribute to the recovery, a lot will be in services and, if he can get a significant investment in alternative energies through, the construction industry.

Yeah take taxpayers money and give it to the Government so they can waste it on alternative energy. Great idea :rolleyes:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

kaiser sauze

mgmt wrote: »

Yeah take taxpayers money and give it to the Government so they can waste it on alternative energy. Great idea :rolleyes:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

Government waste...blah

Government inefficiency...blah

Government bureaucracy...blah

Government = Satan...blah

Government takeover (the non-existent one) = Stalinism/Socialism/Communism/Fascism/Nazism...blah

Climate change = liberal conspiracy to enslave mankind...blah

Tax breaks & cuts only for the wealthy, i.e. me...blah

Laffer curve = be all and end all...blah

:rolleyes:, indeed.

Overheal

I dunno, I'm sure theres something to be said their for politics vs. economics. It makes more money-sense to depend on foreign oil in the short term, but it's politically unpleasant.

Also, Cap and Trade taxes emmissions: this leads coal companys to "cleaning" their coal before burning it. This basically involves running it through a cylindrical bath where the impurities are washed off of it. The resulting slurry winds up in local groundwater or accumulates in toxic sludge pools. I reccomend watching Burning Our Future.

laugh

Watching a program on bbc2 at the moment about the Tea Party, some of these people are really the lowest common denominator.

snow scorpion

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Also, did you honestly just equate Keynesianism with communusm (Marxist economics)

No, I said they share a common characteristic. :pac:

Here's something you might be interested in: Germany says no to Keynesian economics and what do they get? 9% annual growth and unemployment below pre-crisis levels.

southsiderosie

snow scorpion wrote: »

No, I said they share a common characteristic. :pac:

Here's something you might be interested in: Germany says no to Keynesian economics and what do they get? 9% annual growth and unemployment below pre-crisis levels.

An interesting article, but this is the part that most conservatives seem to miss when writing about Germany:

But Germany is still, relative to the United States, a kind of social-democratic paradise. The welfare state is still armed with many more programs that kick in in tough economic times and serve as “automatic stabilizers.” Since 2003, these have become more sophisticated and flexible, and better adapted to a globalized economy. Wolfgang Clement, who served as what we would call the “czar” of economic reform under Social Democratic chancellor Gerhard Schröder, says that “these other instruments have been underestimated” in explaining why Germany is recovering from the downturn of 2008 and the United States is not. The system is already highly stimulative.

We can't have German-style fiscal management in a crisis unless we have German-style education and welfare programs outside of one. And most moderate conservatives balk at these kinds of program; I shudder to think how Tea Partiers might respond.

irishh_bob

laugh wrote: »

Watching a program on bbc2 at the moment about the Tea Party, some of these people are really the lowest common denominator.

my impression of them as a whole is that they are in the main decent but incredibly misguided people , the main reason i cant in anyway take them serious is due to the fact that thier wasnt a peep out of them when republicans were spending like crazy from 2001 - 2009 , i feel thier being duped by hidden corporate forces and of course demagogues like that charlatan glen beck , who is of course himself a corporate lackey

Lockstep

snow scorpion wrote: »

No, I said they share a common characteristic. :pac:

Which is?

snow scorpion wrote: »

Here's something you might be interested in: Germany says no to Keynesian economics and what do they get? 9% annual growth and unemployment below pre-crisis levels.

Ah c'mon, the Weekly Standard?

Dunno where the Weekly Standard is getting it's information as Germany put through a pretty famous stimulus package in 2009 . It's been doing these for years (once reunification happened, again in 2008 etc)