Stephanie Cutter: Whoring It Up

[Listening]

Is anyone going to step forward and support Cutters assertion (which probably came right from Paul Krugman) that the Obama recovery is stronger than the Reagan recovery.

She's a lying tool.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes indeedy! By August of 1983 we had improved on the number when Reagan took office of 91,031,0000. By a couple hundred thousand.

Two recessions.

But the fraudulent author instead starts at the end of the 2nd recession - and then relies on household date to discuss job creation.

Sounds like Reagan moved into the plus column, 14 months before the election.
Despite 2 recessions.
With Obama, we're still in the minus column, less than 3 months before the election.

The economy was losing 9% of it's annualized income and 800,000 jobs when Obama took office.

When Reagan took office it was creating 95,000 per month and gaining 7.6% of income, annualized.

Reagan's recession trough was November 1982, yet 2 years later, after 2 recessions, we were up nearly 5 million jobs.
Obama's recession trough was July 2009, yet more than 3 years later, we're still minus jobs.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Isn't it great - 30 fucking years later and progressives are still bitching about Reagan's economic success...

It was only 30 years ago....

 

[8537]

Sounds like Reagan moved into the plus column, 14 months before the election.
Despite 2 recessions.
With Obama, we're still in the minus column, less than 3 months before the election.

The economy was losing 9% of it's annualized income and 800,000 jobs when Obama took office.

When Reagan took office it was creating 95,000 per month and gaining 7.6% of income, annualized.

Reagan's recession trough was November 1982, yet 2 years later, after 2 recessions, we were up nearly 5 million jobs.
Obama's recession trough was July 2009, yet more than 3 years later, we're still minus jobs.

That's because when Reagan took office the economy was creating 75K per month and growing at 7.6%.

When Obama took office we were losing 800K and 9% of income.

Where you stand today is based on how deeply you dug the hole previously.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The economy was losing 9% of it's annualized income and 800,000 jobs when Obama took office.

When Reagan took office it was creating 95,000 per month and gaining 7.6% of income, annualized.

Reagan's recession trough was November 1982, yet 2 years later, after 2 recessions, we were up nearly 5 million jobs.
Obama's recession trough was July 2009, yet more than 3 years later, we're still minus jobs.

That's because when Reagan took office the economy was creating 75K per month and growing at 7.6%.

When Obama took office we were losing 800K and 9% of income.

Where you stand today is based on how deeply you dug the hole previously.

That's because when Reagan took office the economy was creating 75K per month and growing at 7.6%.

Reagan had less time to recover. Much less. After two recessions.
And was still up 5 million jobs.
From Reagan's job trough, Dec 1982, 88,756,000 jobs, we had 95,960,000 at the election, 23 months later. 7.2 million more.
From Obama's job trough, Feb 2010, 129,244,000 jobs, we now have 133,245,000, jobs 27 months later. 4 million more.

Any way you look at it, Cutter's math doesn't add up.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The economy was losing 9% of it's annualized income and 800,000 jobs when Obama took office.

When Reagan took office it was creating 95,000 per month and gaining 7.6% of income, annualized.

Reagan's recession trough was November 1982, yet 2 years later, after 2 recessions, we were up nearly 5 million jobs.
Obama's recession trough was July 2009, yet more than 3 years later, we're still minus jobs.

That's because when Reagan took office the economy was creating 75K per month and growing at 7.6%.

When Obama took office we were losing 800K and 9% of income.

Where you stand today is based on how deeply you dug the hole previously.

When Reagan took office the economy was fucked - it wasn't until 82/83 the economy started to get better - most people didn't even get their confidence back until 1984 - then we our economy started kicking ass....

It's quite obvious you know absolutely nothing about history...

 

[edthecynic]

Coming from you Ed, that's a complement. What you call dumb, the rest of us call sane. Or are you going to tell me how I listen to Rush (for the 10th time) when you have no evidence to support your accusation ?



Sounds wonderful. Except that Care is only repeating the same bleating that comes from the left on this subject. Oil is about as commodity as you can get...if you have completed wells that are producing. You will always keep your most profitable wells open and producing if there is demand and you can justify the cost of doing it. Contrary to popular belief, oil companies don't collude. They work at whatever market prices are available to them. But not all oil is the same in several dimensions. First, there is the type of oil. Canadian bituman based crudes sell at huge discounts compared to the benchmark crudes. Many midwest refiners have tooled up to handle the additional gas oils and sulfur that come with these crudes. If they can't handle it, the have to look elsewhere and pay more for crude. The recent shutdown of about 750,000 BPD refining capacity on the east coast was because those refiners can't handle sour crudes and are more configured to make gasoline at a time when diesel is king. Oil is also not the same relative to where it can be converted. We can't refine all the finished products we consume....far from it. So, even if you can produce oil locally, if you can't displace existing production or export it...where's it gonna go...to the middle east...where it costs next to nothing to get it out of the ground ?

Chevron is going to sit on it's oil while Exxon produces like crazy ? Chevron stock holders are going to allow that ? Maybe you need to get a new brand of weed.



They are sitting unused because of the lag associated with getting it out of the ground. It takes a lot of money and a lot of time to get a field developed and produced. Oil companies have been around long enough to see the boom and bust cycle and are very cautious. If there was a high probability...you can bet they would be going after it. Oil companies deal leases just like anyone else. Texaco used to sell off leases that didn't meet certain producing quotas...even though they were good leases. Why ? Because of the overhead associated with a lease. It was the same for a 10 barrel a day well or a 10,000 barrel a day well.

So, I think your the one who shown that you can get to a left wing talking points BS site and throw down enough bull to make people think you know what you are talking about.

Better luck next time asswipe.

Of all the stupid crap you post, that is easily the stupidest.
Thank you.

By all means Ed...

Given that I just shoved your talking points up your ass...

Please show us how you are going to use that one point to demonstrate you are right. I'll be waiting for your evidence.

You seem to have a fascination with my ass, but I don't swing that way. All you did was filibuster about unrelated bullshit that has nothing to do with the fact that oil monopoly exists and has been controlled by the Rockefeller family for over 100 years.

The refinery you mention was shut down to restrict supply, not because sweet crude costs more than tar sand. Dirty filthy tar sand/bituman costs more to refine and produces less output per barrel so it costs more after it is refined in spite of the fact that the crude is cheaper.

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan's recession trough was November 1982, yet 2 years later, after 2 recessions, we were up nearly 5 million jobs.
Obama's recession trough was July 2009, yet more than 3 years later, we're still minus jobs.

That's because when Reagan took office the economy was creating 75K per month and growing at 7.6%.

When Obama took office we were losing 800K and 9% of income.

Where you stand today is based on how deeply you dug the hole previously.

When Reagan took office the economy was fucked - it wasn't until 82/83 the economy started to get better - most people didn't even get their confidence back until 1984 - then we our economy started kicking ass....

It's quite obvious you know absolutely nothing about history...

When St Ronnie took over the economy he fucked it over. Then the Democratic Congress took over and turned the economy. You are trying to give Reagan credit for the accomplishments of the Dem Congress.

 

[Care4all]

Cutter: Obama's Recovery Has Been Stronger Than Reagan's, You Know - Guy Benson

I often find Team Obama's lies frustrating and galling. Not this one. The latest gem from Deputy Obama Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter -- whose very loose relationship with the truth has been well documented -- is so preposterous on its face that it doesn't even pass the laugh test:

******************

As the author says...there are just some things that go beyond stupid.

Cutter is really a whore.

why is she a whore?

plus how can one comment when the link you gave, cut off the video, so we don't know what she said in full context?

in addition to this she said ''the last 27 months'' then your op goes and gives figures for 37 months....not the 27 months she was speaking about....?

so, what's to comment about your side's accusations when your side didn't even respond to what she was talking about, the last 27 months? apples and oranges.

 

[Care4all]

There is no end to the lies a CON$ervoFascist is stupid enough to believe.

2/3 of the drilling permits are going unused and any new domestic oil that is found is capped. Remember the new oil found by BP's deepwater horizon site was capped but the cap blew. The only oil from that new find that made it onto the market was the oil skimmed off from the leak. Brazil on the other hand puts any new oil they find on the market.

very true... they cap it and hold it, it doesn't hit the market....and leases they have gotten for the land, they don't even drill sometimes, they just sit on it....so that prices stay high and they can rape us on prices... it's amazing how little people really know on the topic.

Why don't you enlighten us. Even though this is a thread about what a liar Stephanie Cutter is.

Why would they sit on it if they could be monetizing it ?

And who are "they" ?

They are big oil companies.

And as I said, they are sitting on it because oil prices aren't high enough for them....they want oil to maintain it's high price....less on the market, they can keep prices higher...it benefits them all, to do such....

you tell me why you think they are sitting on oil leases that they hold on 46 million acres of federal land and seas....

WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday pushed back against the oil and gas industry's claims that the Obama administration is blocking domestic energy development, releasing a new analysis showing that 46 million acres of federal lands and waters leased for drilling are sitting idle.



According to the Department of Interior report, oil and gas companies are actively drilling or have launched development on less than a third of the 36 million acres they have leased offshore, and on just over half of their onshore leases.



That includes leases where the companies have not yet filed exploration and development plans with the federal government, and ones where companies have received drilling permits but haven't launched the work. According to the report, the government has issued about 7,000 permits for exploration not yet under way on federal and Indian lands.

Obama challenges oil companies to drill existing leases - Houston Chronicle

 

[Listening]

Cutter: Obama's Recovery Has Been Stronger Than Reagan's, You Know - Guy Benson

I often find Team Obama's lies frustrating and galling. Not this one. The latest gem from Deputy Obama Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter -- whose very loose relationship with the truth has been well documented -- is so preposterous on its face that it doesn't even pass the laugh test:

******************

As the author says...there are just some things that go beyond stupid.

Cutter is really a whore.

why is she a whore?

plus how can one comment when the link you gave, cut off the video, so we don't know what she said in full context?

in addition to this she said ''the last 27 months'' then your op goes and gives figures for 37 months....not the 27 months she was speaking about....?

so, what's to comment about your side's accusations when your side didn't even respond to what she was talking about, the last 27 months? apples and oranges.

She's selling herself for money.

And I've included several other "issues" she has had with the truth.

By and large she is seen as a schill, a liar and a whore.

It's that simple.

Are you going to stand behind her conclusion that the Obama recovery is stronger than the Reagan recovery ?

Nobody else seems willing to do so.

BTW: the distraction on oil that you claim (that nobody knows about) is all bulls**t as already explained to EdtheMoron.

 

[Listening]

Please show us how you are going to use that one point to demonstrate you are right. I'll be waiting for your evidence. You seem to have a fascination with my ass, but I don't swing that way. All you did was filibuster about unrelated bullshit that has nothing to do with the fact that oil monopoly exists and has been controlled by the Rockefeller family for over 100 years.

The refinery you mention was shut down to restrict supply, not because sweet crude costs more than tar sand. Dirty filthy tar sand/bituman costs more to refine and produces less output per barrel so it costs more after it is refined in spite of the fact that the crude is cheaper.

We are not talking 100 years ago fool.

There was more than one refinery....there have been six on the east coast plus the one in St. Croix. They were shut down because they can't process the cheaper heavier stuff. The east coast has always been a tough market especially with the export refineries in the middle east coming on line. A couple of those refineries are being restarted by investors who know that hydrocracking is what will keep them going....not standard gasoline production.

Bitumen based crudes are already semi refined (coked and hydroprocessed). You know nothing about refining....that is clear. The crudes tend to produce more gas oils and will carry more refractive sulfur and nitrogen. The yields depend on what form they arrive in. But regardless, the price is set by what the Canadians are willing to give them up for in order to sell the stuff.

This whole "conspiracy theory of yours and the lefts is just stupid.

Oil companies won't produce if it is not economical. And they have to weigh an element of risk. Quoting the O administration on oil is like quoting Romper Room.

Come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about.

BTW: This thread is about Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama in 2012, being shown as a huge liar, spin doctor, and whore. Her felon comment was absoulutely in line with the liar in chiefs strategy that goes against everything he said he would do when elected.

If you want to debate (after you do a little reading) oil, I'll be happy to educate you more in that regard.

Stay on topic.

Do you support Cutter's claims made in the OP. Yes or No or Qualified ? Nobody else here seems willing to do so.

 

[8537]

Reagan's recession trough was November 1982, yet 2 years later, after 2 recessions, we were up nearly 5 million jobs.
Obama's recession trough was July 2009, yet more than 3 years later, we're still minus jobs.

That's because when Reagan took office the economy was creating 75K per month and growing at 7.6%.

When Obama took office we were losing 800K and 9% of income.

Where you stand today is based on how deeply you dug the hole previously.

When Reagan took office the economy was fucked .

You lie like other people breath. Check the history, kid:

When Reagan took office it was creating 95,000 per month and gaining 7.6% of income, annualized.

 

[edthecynic]

Please show us how you are going to use that one point to demonstrate you are right. I'll be waiting for your evidence. You seem to have a fascination with my ass, but I don't swing that way. All you did was filibuster about unrelated bullshit that has nothing to do with the fact that oil monopoly exists and has been controlled by the Rockefeller family for over 100 years.

The refinery you mention was shut down to restrict supply, not because sweet crude costs more than tar sand. Dirty filthy tar sand/bituman costs more to refine and produces less output per barrel so it costs more after it is refined in spite of the fact that the crude is cheaper.

We are not talking 100 years ago fool.

There was more than one refinery....there have been six on the east coast plus the one in St. Croix. They were shut down because they can't process the cheaper heavier stuff. The east coast has always been a tough market especially with the export refineries in the middle east coming on line. A couple of those refineries are being restarted by investors who know that hydrocracking is what will keep them going....not standard gasoline production.

Bitumen based crudes are already semi refined (coked and hydroprocessed). You know nothing about refining....that is clear. The crudes tend to produce more gas oils and will carry more refractive sulfur and nitrogen. The yields depend on what form they arrive in. But regardless, the price is set by what the Canadians are willing to give them up for in order to sell the stuff.

This whole "conspiracy theory of yours and the lefts is just stupid.

Oil companies won't produce if it is not economical. And they have to weigh an element of risk. Quoting the O administration on oil is like quoting Romper Room.

Come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about.

BTW: This thread is about Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama in 2012, being shown as a huge liar, spin doctor, and whore. Her felon comment was absoulutely in line with the liar in chiefs strategy that goes against everything he said he would do when elected.

If you want to debate (after you do a little reading) oil, I'll be happy to educate you more in that regard.

Stay on topic.

Do you support Cutter's claims made in the OP. Yes or No or Qualified ? Nobody else here seems willing to do so.

Your surrender is accepted.

 

[Listening]

Please show us how you are going to use that one point to demonstrate you are right. I'll be waiting for your evidence. You seem to have a fascination with my ass, but I don't swing that way. All you did was filibuster about unrelated bullshit that has nothing to do with the fact that oil monopoly exists and has been controlled by the Rockefeller family for over 100 years.

The refinery you mention was shut down to restrict supply, not because sweet crude costs more than tar sand. Dirty filthy tar sand/bituman costs more to refine and produces less output per barrel so it costs more after it is refined in spite of the fact that the crude is cheaper.

We are not talking 100 years ago fool.

There was more than one refinery....there have been six on the east coast plus the one in St. Croix. They were shut down because they can't process the cheaper heavier stuff. The east coast has always been a tough market especially with the export refineries in the middle east coming on line. A couple of those refineries are being restarted by investors who know that hydrocracking is what will keep them going....not standard gasoline production.

Bitumen based crudes are already semi refined (coked and hydroprocessed). You know nothing about refining....that is clear. The crudes tend to produce more gas oils and will carry more refractive sulfur and nitrogen. The yields depend on what form they arrive in. But regardless, the price is set by what the Canadians are willing to give them up for in order to sell the stuff.

This whole "conspiracy theory of yours and the lefts is just stupid.

Oil companies won't produce if it is not economical. And they have to weigh an element of risk. Quoting the O administration on oil is like quoting Romper Room.

Come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about.

BTW: This thread is about Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama in 2012, being shown as a huge liar, spin doctor, and whore. Her felon comment was absoulutely in line with the liar in chiefs strategy that goes against everything he said he would do when elected.

If you want to debate (after you do a little reading) oil, I'll be happy to educate you more in that regard.

Stay on topic.

Do you support Cutter's claims made in the OP. Yes or No or Qualified ? Nobody else here seems willing to do so.

Your surrender is accepted.

Thanks for the laugh, Ed.

You can't address anything I said and you won't get behind Cutter's comments.

And you think I surrendered !

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cutter: Obama's Recovery Has Been Stronger Than Reagan's, You Know - Guy Benson

I often find Team Obama's lies frustrating and galling. Not this one. The latest gem from Deputy Obama Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter -- whose very loose relationship with the truth has been well documented -- is so preposterous on its face that it doesn't even pass the laugh test:

******************

As the author says...there are just some things that go beyond stupid.

Cutter is really a whore.

why is she a whore?

plus how can one comment when the link you gave, cut off the video, so we don't know what she said in full context?

in addition to this she said ''the last 27 months'' then your op goes and gives figures for 37 months....not the 27 months she was speaking about....?

so, what's to comment about your side's accusations when your side didn't even respond to what she was talking about, the last 27 months? apples and oranges.

Let's talk about those 27 months.
Obama's job trough was Feb 2010, 129,244,000 jobs, 27 months later, 133,018,000 jobs. 3,774,000 million more.
Reagan's job trough was Dec 1982, 88,756,000 jobs, 27 months later, 96,823,000. 8,067,000 more jobs.
I'm pretty sure Reagan's number is bigger than Obama's number.
Maybe she meant percentages?
8,067,000/88,756,000 = 9.1% more jobs under Reagan.
3,774,000/129,244,000 = 2.9% more jobs under Obama.

No, that's not it either.
Can any liberal show the math that makes her claim less ridiculous?

 

[8537]

Cutter: Obama's Recovery Has Been Stronger Than Reagan's, You Know - Guy Benson

I often find Team Obama's lies frustrating and galling. Not this one. The latest gem from Deputy Obama Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter -- whose very loose relationship with the truth has been well documented -- is so preposterous on its face that it doesn't even pass the laugh test:

******************

As the author says...there are just some things that go beyond stupid.

Cutter is really a whore.

why is she a whore?

plus how can one comment when the link you gave, cut off the video, so we don't know what she said in full context?

in addition to this she said ''the last 27 months'' then your op goes and gives figures for 37 months....not the 27 months she was speaking about....?

so, what's to comment about your side's accusations when your side didn't even respond to what she was talking about, the last 27 months? apples and oranges.

Let's talk about those 27 months.
Obama's job trough was Feb 2010, 129,244,000 jobs, 27 months later, 133,018,000 jobs. 3,774,000 million more.
Reagan's job trough was Dec 1982, 88,756,000 jobs, 27 months later, 96,823,000. 8,067,000 more jobs.
I'm pretty sure Reagan's number is bigger than Obama's number.
Maybe she meant percentages?
8,067,000/88,756,000 = 9.1% more jobs under Reagan.
3,774,000/129,244,000 = 2.9% more jobs under Obama.

No, that's not it either.
Can any liberal show the math that makes her claim less ridiculous?

I don't think her number add up any better than the person challenging them by using Household survey data.

On the other hand, during Reagan's recovery government employment increased by 3.1%. in this recovery the government has shed 2.7%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why is she a whore?

plus how can one comment when the link you gave, cut off the video, so we don't know what she said in full context?

in addition to this she said ''the last 27 months'' then your op goes and gives figures for 37 months....not the 27 months she was speaking about....?

so, what's to comment about your side's accusations when your side didn't even respond to what she was talking about, the last 27 months? apples and oranges.

Let's talk about those 27 months.
Obama's job trough was Feb 2010, 129,244,000 jobs, 27 months later, 133,018,000 jobs. 3,774,000 million more.
Reagan's job trough was Dec 1982, 88,756,000 jobs, 27 months later, 96,823,000. 8,067,000 more jobs.
I'm pretty sure Reagan's number is bigger than Obama's number.
Maybe she meant percentages?
8,067,000/88,756,000 = 9.1% more jobs under Reagan.
3,774,000/129,244,000 = 2.9% more jobs under Obama.

No, that's not it either.
Can any liberal show the math that makes her claim less ridiculous?

I don't think her number add up any better than the person challenging them by using Household survey data.

On the other hand, during Reagan's recovery government employment increased by 3.1%. in this recovery the government has shed 2.7%.

I'm pretty sure that dosn't explain the 4.3 million difference.

 

[8537]

Let's talk about those 27 months.
Obama's job trough was Feb 2010, 129,244,000 jobs, 27 months later, 133,018,000 jobs. 3,774,000 million more.
Reagan's job trough was Dec 1982, 88,756,000 jobs, 27 months later, 96,823,000. 8,067,000 more jobs.
I'm pretty sure Reagan's number is bigger than Obama's number.
Maybe she meant percentages?
8,067,000/88,756,000 = 9.1% more jobs under Reagan.
3,774,000/129,244,000 = 2.9% more jobs under Obama.

No, that's not it either.
Can any liberal show the math that makes her claim less ridiculous?

I don't think her number add up any better than the person challenging them by using Household survey data.

On the other hand, during Reagan's recovery government employment increased by 3.1%. in this recovery the government has shed 2.7%.

I'm pretty sure that dosn't explain the 4.3 million difference.

That's why I said I don't think her numbers add up any better than the person who used household data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't think her number add up any better than the person challenging them by using Household survey data.

On the other hand, during Reagan's recovery government employment increased by 3.1%. in this recovery the government has shed 2.7%.

I'm pretty sure that dosn't explain the 4.3 million difference.

That's why I said I don't think her numbers add up any better than the person who used household data.

Who used household data? Where?