• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2010: Home Of "By The Time I Get To Arizona"

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

besada

Banned
Oblivion said:
Um...I are being confused.

Back in February, the CBO said the Stimulus created 2.1 million jobs in the last quarter of 2009.

So with this new report, between the 4th quarter of 2009 and the first quarter 2010, the stimulus created between 3.3 million and 4.9 million jobs, which in turn would mean Herr Obama created more jobs in 6 months than Bush did in 8 years? Am I reading that right? That's almost too good to be true. I'm sure I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

I read an article about this the other day:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100515_5237.php
Click to expand...

It ignores the massive number of jobs lost in Obama's first year, but it's got a nice little bit about how poor, in general, the entire Bush economy was in job creation:
Bush's total, of course, was suppressed by the slowdown he inherited from Clinton and the full-scale meltdown during his last year. But even during the recovery in between, job growth lagged. In only eight of Bush's 96 months did the economy create as many jobs as the 290,000 it did last month. Clinton exceeded that level 33 times. Reagan exceeded it 24. In all, the economy gained about 1.2 million jobs annually during the six years of recovery under Bush. It averaged about twice that during the expansion from March 1991 to February 2001.
Click to expand...
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
besada said:
I read an article about this the other day:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100515_5237.php


It ignores the massive number of jobs lost in Obama's first year, but it's got a nice little bit about how poor, in general, the entire Bush economy was in job creation:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read that same article before, which is why I was unsure. There was also that job chart that Pelosi posted from the bureau of labor and statistics , which even taking into account April's numbers, wouldn't add up to the job numbers as high as the recent report.

mckmas8808 said:
Send this link to your friend.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

It's the actual report from the CBO themselves. If they don't believe that, then drop them from being your friend.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Puddles said:
For the layman, would it be a huge deal if Lincoln's derivatives crackdown gets killed in the reconciliation?
Click to expand...

The little that I understand (which is seriously not much to write home about), the derivative market had no regulation. Everything was done in the shadows so nobody knew how much was truly owed and how much each 'bet' was 'worth'. What Lincoln wants is to regulate these derivatives and bring it out into the open. Obviously Wall Street is against this because it would turn what is currently gray into a more rigid and black and white amount. That is each derivative would have a more hard-line number attached to it. It is something that will help such a downfall from happening again. Will you and I notice a change directly? Unless you and I play Wall Street, most likely not. However, we will have a bit more confidence that what happened in 2008 won't happen again, at least not due to the derivative market.
 
K

Killthee

helped a brotha out on multiple separate occasions!
Another hurdle added to the DADT compromise....


BREAKING: Robert Byrd To Support Repeal Of DADT After Inserting Language Giving Congress 60 Days To Review Study

Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) office has just sent me an email saying that the senator, who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will support the compromise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell after successfully inserting language into the amendment that would “give Congress an additional 60 days to thoroughly review the implementation policy once certified”:

“I did not want to blindly assent to repealing this law without giving the Congress an opportunity to re-examine the concerns of our Armed Forces and the manner in which they are being addressed.”

“Therefore, I worked with the Senate and House Leadership, Senators Lieberman and Levin, Congressman Murphy, the Administration and the Department of Defense to include a provision in the proposed compromise amendment that would delay the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell’ policy for 60 days after receipt of the findings of the Pentagon Review and the determination of the proposed policy and regulation changes.”

“This period of time will allow the Congress, along with the American people, to thoroughly review the proposed policy recommendations to ensure that these changes are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for our Armed Forces.” “With these changes, I will support the amendment expected to be offered by Senator Lieberman to the Department of Defense Authorization bill.”

The new language will presumably send the issue back to Congress even after the results of the Defense Department review are certified by President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen. The full compromise now looks something like this: 1) Congress passes repeal as an attachment to the defense authorization bill, 2) once the study is completed on December 1, officials will certify that it does not undermine military effectiveness 3) once it’s certified, Congress has 60 days to “review” it before DADT is repealed. Byrd provides the 16th vote for repeal on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but under this scenario the ban won’t be eliminated until sometime in early 2011.​
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Killthee said:
Another hurdle added to the DADT compromise....


BREAKING: Robert Byrd To Support Repeal Of DADT After Inserting Language Giving Congress 60 Days To Review Study

Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) office has just sent me an email saying that the senator, who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will support the compromise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell after successfully inserting language into the amendment that would “give Congress an additional 60 days to thoroughly review the implementation policy once certified”:

“I did not want to blindly assent to repealing this law without giving the Congress an opportunity to re-examine the concerns of our Armed Forces and the manner in which they are being addressed.”

“Therefore, I worked with the Senate and House Leadership, Senators Lieberman and Levin, Congressman Murphy, the Administration and the Department of Defense to include a provision in the proposed compromise amendment that would delay the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell’ policy for 60 days after receipt of the findings of the Pentagon Review and the determination of the proposed policy and regulation changes.”

“This period of time will allow the Congress, along with the American people, to thoroughly review the proposed policy recommendations to ensure that these changes are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for our Armed Forces.” “With these changes, I will support the amendment expected to be offered by Senator Lieberman to the Department of Defense Authorization bill.”

The new language will presumably send the issue back to Congress even after the results of the Defense Department review are certified by President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen. The full compromise now looks something like this: 1) Congress passes repeal as an attachment to the defense authorization bill, 2) once the study is completed on December 1, officials will certify that it does not undermine military effectiveness 3) once it’s certified, Congress has 60 days to “review” it before DADT is repealed. Byrd provides the 16th vote for repeal on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but under this scenario the ban won’t be eliminated until sometime in early 2011.​
Click to expand...
Amazing. Smh.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Oblivion said:
......TA?
Click to expand...


I shrug my shoulders at all the CBO stuff. They don't really show you how they get to all their numbers or what methodology they use. Although I haven't really dug that deep, nor really care to.


Link

CBO projection of the stimulus bill Feb. 2009 said:
The letter, sent yesterday to Sen. Judd Gregg and copied to eight other leading legislators, estimates that the bill would stimulate the economy the most in 2010. By the end of that year, the analysis estimates, 1.3 to 3.9 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would be 0.7 to 2.1 percentage points lower than the 8.7 percent forecasted. And GDP would increase from 1.2 to 3.6 percentage points over a baseline forecast
Click to expand...

So, in two quarters this bill has stimulated more jobs than they projected initially for the entire 2 years.

That forecast, of course, was based on the House bill. Which was watered down a bit once it went through Senate.

Seems odd at such a huge disparity, especially since the administration went full bore into creating a "jobs bill" and passing other stimulus measures just a year later.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Oblivion said:
Someone confirm this, cause I want to make my friend's head explode.

Ghaleon? Speculawyer? Empty Vessel? Opiate?

......TA?
Click to expand...
I've generally found that the media does a terrible job reporting what the CBO reports actually say, so I read the CBO reports themselves. The CBO Director's blog post on each report is linked below, the full reports are linked from there. The blog posts describe them pretty clearly, and the reports themselves have tables that lay out the figures they're estimating. You can see the 2.1m figure for Q4 in the article you linked to on page 10 of the most recent report (in the Q4 row of the 2009 section, naturally).

Here's the report they issued today.

Here's the report they issued for Q4.

LovingSteam said:
Amazing. Smh.
Click to expand...
They're managing to make something very simple - repeal a bad policy, when said repeal is wildly popular - and make it as complex as fucking possible. No wonder people hate Congress.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Killthee said:
Another hurdle added to the DADT compromise....
BREAKING: Robert Byrd To Support Repeal Of DADT After Inserting Language Giving Congress 60 Days To Review Study
Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) office has just sent me an email saying that the senator, who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will support the compromise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell after successfully inserting language into the amendment that would “give Congress an additional 60 days to thoroughly review the implementation policy once certified”:
“I did not want to blindly assent to repealing this law without giving the Congress an opportunity to re-examine the concerns of our Armed Forces and the manner in which they are being addressed.”
“Therefore, I worked with the Senate and House Leadership, Senators Lieberman and Levin, Congressman Murphy, the Administration and the Department of Defense to include a provision in the proposed compromise amendment that would delay the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell’ policy for 60 days after receipt of the findings of the Pentagon Review and the determination of the proposed policy and regulation changes.”
“This period of time will allow the Congress, along with the American people, to thoroughly review the proposed policy recommendations to ensure that these changes are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for our Armed Forces.” “With these changes, I will support the amendment expected to be offered by Senator Lieberman to the Department of Defense Authorization bill.”
The new language will presumably send the issue back to Congress even after the results of the Defense Department review are certified by President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen. The full compromise now looks something like this: 1) Congress passes repeal as an attachment to the defense authorization bill, 2) once the study is completed on December 1, officials will certify that it does not undermine military effectiveness 3) once it’s certified, Congress has 60 days to “review” it before DADT is repealed. Byrd provides the 16th vote for repeal on the Senate Armed Services Committee, but under this scenario the ban won’t be eliminated until sometime in early 2011.​
Click to expand...

Okay this is the dumbest shit in life. So basically Congress has to pass it twice. Once will more DEMs in Congress, and then again with more REPs in Congress. So basically it's not going to happen at all.

Thanks alot FUCKING Sen. Bryd. Fucking dumbass!!
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Okay this is the dumbest shit in life. So basically Congress has to pass it twice. Once will more DEMs in Congress, and then again with more REPs in Congress. So basically it's not going to happen at all.

Thanks alot FUCKING Sen. Bryd. Fucking dumbass!!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Seriously, I may be a jackass who is just too damn stupid to understand why this is so freaking complicated but seriously, WHY IS IT SO COMPLICATED!
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Top Social Conservative: Hitler Used Gay Soldiers Because They Had 'No Limits'
Zachary Roth | May 26, 2010, 11:16AM

Bryan_Fischer1-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

Bryan Fischer, Director at American Family Association


A top official with a leading social conservative group recently laid out the view that Adolf Hitler deliberately recruited gays to be his "enforcers," because they had "no limits" to "the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict."

During a radio broadcast, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association explained:
So Hitler himself was an active homosexual. And some people wonder, didn't the Germans, didn't the Nazis, persecute homosexuals? And it is true they did; they persecuted effeminate homosexuals. But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals.
​

###########

WOW!!!! So now the religious right are comparing gay soldiers to Hitler and the worse acting Nazis. I didn't think they would go this far. Holy crap! You can see the video at the link.
 
L

Lefty

Member
Puddles said:
For the layman, would it be a huge deal if Lincoln's derivatives crackdown gets killed in the reconciliation?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It gets the right idea down but from what I read its actually too strong and would actually hurt us more than it would help us....or something like that.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
LovingSteam said:
Exactly. Seriously, I may be a jackass who is just too damn stupid to understand why this is so freaking complicated but seriously, WHY IS IT SO COMPLICATED!
Click to expand...
I just went back to the main article, and the two updates clear up my concern: I assumed Congress would have to authorize the repeal after the military review. Nope.

Update: Update Metro Weekly's Chris Geidner, who has reviewed the new language, reports that the 60 day certification does not require additional Congressional action.

Update: Geidner: "Best I can tell, Byrd's statement is more spinning than fact; amendment simply says the law takes effect 60 days after conditions met."​

Just means repeal can't happen sooner than 60 days after the study is done. It's an entirely arbitrary pause so Byrd can say...um, I'm not sure, actually.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
I just went back to the main article, and the two updates clear up my concern: I assumed Congress would have to authorize the repeal after the military review. Nope.

Update: Update Metro Weekly's Chris Geidner, who has reviewed the new language, reports that the 60 day certification does not require additional Congressional action.

Update: Geidner: "Best I can tell, Byrd's statement is more spinning than fact; amendment simply says the law takes effect 60 days after conditions met."​

Just means repeal can't happen sooner than 60 days after the study is done. It's an entirely arbitrary pause so Byrd can say...um, I'm not sure, actually.
Click to expand...

Hmm ok. That is why I just don't understand this 60 day period; if it isn't to require a new vote than why implement it? Oh, and just really off topic but Jill Scott has to be one of the worst actresses I have seen. Ugh.
 
K

Killthee

helped a brotha out on multiple separate occasions!
LovingSteam said:
Hmm ok. That is why I just don't understand this 60 day period; if it isn't to require a new vote than why implement it? Oh, and just really off topic but Jill Scott has to be one of the worst actresses I have seen. Ugh.
Click to expand...
I guess Byrd knows he can't stop this and wants to minimize any backlash he might face from his constituents for it.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
GhaleonEB said:
I just went back to the main article, and the two updates clear up my concern: I assumed Congress would have to authorize the repeal after the military review. Nope.

Update: Update Metro Weekly's Chris Geidner, who has reviewed the new language, reports that the 60 day certification does not require additional Congressional action.
Update: Geidner: "Best I can tell, Byrd's statement is more spinning than fact; amendment simply says the law takes effect 60 days after conditions met."​
Just means repeal can't happen sooner than 60 days after the study is done. It's an entirely arbitrary pause so Byrd can say...um, I'm not sure, actually.
Click to expand...

Thank GOD!!!! Thanks for the update. Wheew.

LovingSteam said:
Hmm ok. That is why I just don't understand this 60 day period; if it isn't to require a new vote than why implement it? Oh, and just really off topic but Jill Scott has to be one of the worst actresses I have seen. Ugh.
Click to expand...

You've GOT to be crazy. Jill did a good job in the Tyler Perry movie. She's not that bad at all. What are you watching?
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Thank GOD!!!! Thanks for the update. Wheew.



You've GOT to be crazy. Jill did a good job in the Tyler Perry movie. She's not that bad at all. What are you watching?
Click to expand...

Why I Got Married? Ehh, there were a few parts she was alright on in that movie but for the most part I felt she WAS acting. The really good actors are great in that you don't realize they're acting. With Jill Scott, she is like Jada Pinkett in that everything is over done. But to answer your question, I was watching her in Law & Order SVU. Speaking of which, Sharon Stone is now the DA and ugh.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
LovingSteam said:
Why I Got Married? Ehh, there were a few parts she was alright on in that movie but for the most part I felt she WAS acting. The really good actors are great in that you don't realize they're acting. With Jill Scott, she is like Jada Pinkett in that everything is over done. But to answer your question, I was watching her in Law & Order SVU. Speaking of which, Sharon Stone is now the DA and ugh.
Click to expand...


Damn man I like Jada Pinkett too. Why you hate all black actresses LovingSteam? That's F'ed up!

I know you are married to a sister. Just kidding around. :)
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Damn man I like Jada Pinkett too. Why you hate all black actresses LovingSteam? That's F'ed up!

I know you are married to a sister. Just kidding around. :)
Click to expand...
:lol :lol :lol My wife says the same thing lol. Whenever Jada Pinkett's show is advertised on TNT and she says "I am Christina Hawthorne" I respond by saying "Uhh no, no you're not!" lol.
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Dupy said:
Well this is pretty disgusting:



More at http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-dadt-means-more-gay-rape-in-the-military.php

Wonder how long they've had this bogus report waiting in the wings.
Click to expand...
Hahahahaha what???????

This is absurd, however there are some things that people not in the military should know, the study is not all bogus. There's a weird vibe in all male combat units not unlike the movie Waiting or what I assume some big Fraternity would be like, there's always some asshole waiting in the wings to make you accidentally look at his cock and there's of course sometimes some loser who thinks tea-bagging is hilarious. Frankly, as far as that shit is concerned I don't think that's sexual assault, it's a side effect of having 100's of juveniles share a barracks, however, I know there's many people who of course don't want that to happen and I do believe that they have a right to not have to fight someone to not get balls shoved in their face. It's a fair gripe. But I've never really heard of a man sucking off another man in his sleep against his will or some shit, it's absurd, so I'm positive they're mixing these juvenile cases of harassment, in with the more major shit.

Now actual sexual assault as someone else already mentioned in this thread is by far more often committed by a straight male against a woman.

I think it's time that this country start honestly separating harassment from actual sexual assault.

There's a whole host of issues regarding gay men, women and the military that we're going to have to work through. Language for instance, I don't see the big deal, if someone gets so hurt over having their sexuality called into question during a run then I wonder what he'll do when bullets start flying. Get over it.

But what straight man wants another penis near his face? In my old unit, the situation stabilized after time, you show them you don't find it funny, they find you boring and they form a little clique of people all trying to "get" each other and ignore you when it comes to cock jokes, it wasn't bad outside of the first time where everyone was learning everyone's limits. Even if you did accidentally see someone's dick every once in a while as they were doing a prank, it's still just a penis. I don't think this should necessarily be criminal, but there should be some means to force that behavior to be curbed in your presence if the people are unwilling to cut you out of their stupid games. This kind of stupid shit will probably always be there as long as they allow kids in the military and I really don't see them raising the minimum age to join to 23 or some shit any time soon, kids are kids.

But actual sexual assault, that's always bad and it sure as hell is not the men who get the short end of that stick in the military, I fail to see how any commander would fear being labeled a homophobe, of all the things someone in the military might fear being labeled as, a homophobe is NOT one of them. It's the women who suffer the most. Yeah, sometimes men get unfairly treated over an off the cuff remark, perhaps an honest sexual pass that was turned down and amounted to nothing was unjustly escalated by a woman but even with all that the women still have it worse many times having very real complaints swept under the rug or no one they can trust to talk to, it's not the men who are going to get assaulted and have nothing done about it.
 
Big-ass Ramp

Big-ass Ramp

hella bullets that's true
Killthee said:
1) Congress passes repeal as an attachment to the defense authorization bill, 2) once the study is completed on December 1, officials will certify that it does not undermine military effectiveness 3) once it’s certified, Congress has 60 days to “review” it before DADT is repealed[/B].
Click to expand...


So in other words, even if it passes with this huge democrat majority, the mid-term repub surge is certain to kill it.
 
3

3rdman

Member
LovingSteam said:
:lol :lol :lol My wife says the same thing lol. Whenever Jada Pinkett's show is advertised on TNT and she says "I am Christina Hawthorne" I respond by saying "Uhh no, no you're not!" lol.
Click to expand...
God I hate that show and I've never seen it...it looks so cliche and lacks originality....

Random Nurse: "But this is my ward! We do things my way here!"
Jada Pinket: "Not anymore"

Cue music...Ugh..

/vomit

Edit: Oh and Tyler Perry sucks. :p
 
N

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
LovingSteam said:
Exactly. Seriously, I may be a jackass who is just too damn stupid to understand why this is so freaking complicated but seriously, WHY IS IT SO COMPLICATED!
Click to expand...

Because no one wants to take direct responsibility for something wildly unpopular? Bitch about Congress all you want, but the real problem is they represent America as a whole, and America's not exactly known as friendly to homosexuals.
 
K

Killthee

helped a brotha out on multiple separate occasions!
Big Ass Ramp said:
So in other words, even if it passes with this huge democrat majority, the mid-term repub surge is certain to kill it.
Click to expand...
It's unlikely. The new language in the amendment doesn't require Congress to vote for it again after the 60 day "review period" ends. Once the 60 days are over, DADT will be repealed. If the new Republican Congress wants to reinstate DADT or something else like it they'll have to vote for it.
 
B

besada

Banned
Nerevar said:
Because no one wants to take direct responsibility for something wildly unpopular? Bitch about Congress all you want, but the real problem is they represent America as a whole, and America's not exactly known as friendly to homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Except repeal of DADT isn't wildly unpopular. Other than that, your post made perfect sense.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
The Senate just passed their emergency funding bill 69-29. I have no idea what's in it, there's been so many jobs bills, extenders, etc. The House is looking to pass an actual jobs bill today or tomorrow. IIRC, the Senate dropped the $23b state school fund, but the House is adding it in.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
ToxicAdam said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/27/mms.director.fired/
Click to expand...
You forgot the best part:

The Lake Charles investigation was launched shortly after another scandal emerged from within the MMS. A September 2008 inspector general's report found regulators in the agency's Colorado office received improper gifts from energy industry representatives and engaged in illegal drug use and inappropriate sexual relations with them.
Click to expand...
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Does anyone know if Obama's monthly meet with the Republican caucus is televised? Because I would like to see it.

Also, don't know if this comment is telling or not, but during the press conference Obama mentioned that, in the Senate, a "simple majority is not enough."

...must...not...get...excited...
 
O

Opiate

Member
Oblivion, there is something being overlooked in that comparison you are making using the CBO report. The metrics being used to measure both Presidents are incompatable.

Let me explain by giving you an example. Consider this extreme case (I'm not saying it's true): let's imagine that if Bush had done nothing -- perhaps not implimenting his tax cuts for the wealthier brackets -- then there would have been a far steeper recession in 2000 and 2008, and there would have been less job growth in between, as well. Let's say there would have been an additional 2 million jobs lost over that time frame if Bush hadn't acted so responsibly.

In this example, it would mean we estimate Bush "created" 3 million jobs total: 2 million which he saved, and ~1 million he actually created new, from whole cloth.

And that sort of measurement is exactly what we're doing with Obama. If we were to measure Obama the way we're measuring Bush, then he'd look terrible, because on an absolute scale, there are millions less jobs now than there were since Obama took office (although there are 500K+ more jobs now than there was just 6 months ago).

Put differently, we're measuring Bush by the change in absolute job numbers, while with Obama we're measuring the change in jobs based on our estimation of how bad it would have been if Obama had done nothing. That's not an equivalent comparison.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Kos/R2K has Halter leading Lincoln in the runoff. Halter scooped up nearly 100% of undecided voters heading into the initial primary - he'll likely do the same here.

Democratic primary

Blanche Lincoln (D) 44
Bill Halter (D) 47
Undecided 9

General will be a heavy lift, with the current poll showing Lincoln behind Boozman by 20 points, and Halter behind by 11. Assuming a post runoff bounce for Halter, that's striking distance. But no matter what happens, Lincoln is toast. I hope it happens in the runoff.

They also have Rand Paul ahead of Conway by only four points.
Opiate said:
let's imagine that if Bush had done nothing -- perhaps not implimenting his tax cuts for the wealthier brackets -- then there would have been a far steeper recession in 2000 and 2008, and there would have been less job growth in between, as well.
Click to expand...
what the as;ldjf
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Opiate said:
Let me explain by giving you an example. Consider this extreme case: let's imagine that if Bush had done nothing -- perhaps not implimenting his tax cuts for the wealthier brackets -- then there would have been a far steeper recession in 2000 and 2008, and there would have been less job growth in between, as well. Let's say there would have been an additional 2 million jobs lost over that time frame if Bush hadn't acted so responsibly.
Click to expand...
:lol :lol
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Kos/R2K has Halter leading Lincoln in the runoff. Halter scooped up nearly 100% of undecided voters heading into the initial primary - he'll likely do the same here.

Democratic primary

Blanche Lincoln (D) 44
Bill Halter (D) 47
Undecided 9

General will be a heavy lift, with the current poll showing Lincoln behind Boozman by 20 points, and Halter behind by 11. Assuming a post runoff bounce for Halter, that's striking distance. But no matter what happens, Lincoln is toast. I hope it happens in the runoff.

They also have Rand Paul ahead of Conway by only four points.
Click to expand...

Kentucky is not a super racist place where Rand could say anything and get away with it but it's still Kentucky in the end.
 
O

Opiate

Member
reilo said:
:lol :lol
Click to expand...

Right, I get it. As I said, I chose the example precisely because it's extreme. Extreme examples are very good at getting a central point across: "Can you see how it works in this crazy example? Well, it works the same way in the less crazy examples, just to a less crazy extent."

Again: we're measuring Obama by how many jobs he's "saved." We're measuring Bush by how many jobs were actually created on an absolute scale during his presidency.

I am not saying that either measurement is a bad one. I am not saying Bush was a good President (he wasn't) or that Obama is a bad one (I don't think he is at all, so far). I'm just saying -- they're different systems of measurement, and it's unfair to use two different yardsticks and to measure two different people and then proclaim one of them the winner.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Opiate said:
Right, I get it. As I said, I chose the example precisely because it's extreme. Extreme examples are very good at getting a central point across: "Can you see how it works in this crazy example? Well, it works the same way in the less crazy examples, just to a less crazy extent."

Again: we're measuring Obama by how many jobs he's "saved." We're measuring Bush by how many jobs were actually created on an absolute scale during his presidency.

I am not saying that either measurement is a bad one. I am not saying Bush was a good President (he wasn't) or that Obama is a bad one (I don't think he is at all, so far). I'm just saying -- they're different systems of measurement, and it's unfair to use two different yardsticks and to measure two different people and then proclaim one of them the winner.
Click to expand...
I'm not laughing at your "extreme", I'm laughing at the general idea that cutting taxes for the rich somehow creates jobs.
 
O

Opiate

Member
reilo said:
I'm not laughing at your "extreme", I'm laughing at the general idea that cutting taxes for the rich somehow creates jobs.
Click to expand...

I smiled while I typed it, too. If that makes it better.

But yes, to get an apples-to-apples comparison, we would need an unbiased, expert panel to go in an estimate what the job market would have looked like if Bush had essentially coasted and let Clinton's policies operate unimpeded.

Now here are real examples: I can completely imagine such a panel coming back and saying that there would have been exactly 132.5 million jobs in 2008 if Bush had simply done nothing. That would mean that Bush's policies created 1 million jobs. And deserves credit. I'm not sure that's likely, but it seems at least realistically plausible.

On the flipside, it's also possible that such a panel would come back and say that we would have had 140 million jobs, in which case we would conclude that Bush's policies cost the American public approximately 6.5 million jobs (the math is 140 - 133.5, the figure we actually ended up with), despite the fact that on an absolute scale, jobs increased.

I personally think the latter is far more likely than the former, but I'm neither an expert, nor would I alone constitute a panel. I'm just elucidating what type of work would need to be done if we wanted to do a legitimate, apples-to-apples comparison of Bush and Obama's job creation.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
reilo said:
I'm not laughing at your "extreme", I'm laughing at the general idea that cutting taxes for the rich somehow creates jobs.
Click to expand...


It was an EXAMPLE! Damn get over it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games.
2
62
8K
Ozriel replied
Man Arrested for Uncensoring Japanese Porn With AI in First Deepfake Case
2
75
13K
LordOfChaos replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
19K
Elysium44 replied
Every Activision Blizzard Game in Development (IGN)
Opinion News
39
4K
Sentenza replied
  • Locked
Pfizer’s Covid Vaccine Over 90% Effective, applying for FDA authorization later this month
2
67
8K
TaylorSwiftFan replied
Top Bottom