The Perils for Obama of Not Talking About Poverty in America

[California Girl]

I'm sorry, but I'm still laughing at the thought that the booper is going to send this wailing gibberish article from Hufferpost to the Obama..

Me too.

 

[Vanquish]

Quote where I said America is lazy or stupid. I dare you. Don't post again until you have MY NAME and LAZY or STUPID in the same post about AMERICA.

You can't, fucktard. So go sit the fuck down on a rusty nail.

The last cop out of the terminally stupid. I showed you where you wrote that, fucktard. Can you not read? Do you not understand what you yourself write?

Fucking retard.

You didn't show shit. You interpreted my words. I never wrote that.

Thanks for proving once again WHY I usually don't respond to your brand of fucking-insane bat-shit fuckedupness. I don't know why I did. Nobody listens to you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Quote where I said America is lazy or stupid. I dare you. Don't post again until you have MY NAME and LAZY or STUPID in the same post about AMERICA.

You can't, fucktard. So go sit the fuck down on a rusty nail.

The last cop out of the terminally stupid. I showed you where you wrote that, fucktard. Can you not read? Do you not understand what you yourself write?

Fucking retard.

You didn't show shit. You interpreted my words. I never wrote that.

Thanks for proving once again WHY I usually don't respond to your brand of fucking-insane bat-shit fuckedupness. I don't know why I did. Nobody listens to you.

Of course I did numbskull. You either cannot read or cannot write or both. You obviously believe American workers are stupid and lazy, or not leading in efficiency and productivity, as you put it.

 

[Vanquish]

You can't find me saying that so what do you do? You INTERPRET what I say like a fucking dumbass.

Clinton even said it on Morning Joe today...American efficiency has stayed the same for 20 years!!!

You're pathetic. When you can't get someone to say what you want...you just make shit up. That makes all your posts even more worthless than they already were. You can't be trusted to see facts in front of your face...and when you comment on something, it's full of lies and bullshit. Nasty, wet, farty, drippy cow feces that has no bearing on the topic...just your biased spin that has zero value in a real discussion.

Continue to make shit up when you've lost. It makes you look even worse.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can't find me saying that so what do you do? You INTERPRET what I say like a fucking dumbass.

Clinton even said it on Morning Joe today...American efficiency has stayed the same for 20 years!!!

You're pathetic. When you can't get someone to say what you want...you just make shit up. That makes all your posts even more worthless than they already were. You can't be trusted to see facts in front of your face...and when you comment on something, it's full of lies and bullshit. Nasty, wet, farty, drippy cow feces that has no bearing on the topic...just your biased spin that has zero value in a real discussion.

Continue to make shit up when you've lost. It makes you look even worse.

I am sorry if you cannot make a simple interpretation of your own words.
And you need to stop listening to economist Bill Clinton, who lies today like he did when in office.
Productivity Growth by Major Sector, 1947-2010. Bar Chart

I realize you will need the chart explained to you. Let's see if you can actually interpret it correctly. I'm betting no.

 

[Vanquish]

Thanks for posting a chart that proved Clinton right. Let me interpret your own chart for you, since you seem to need it.

Clinton said "20 years"...that means we start with the PURPLE bar. Please tell me you're not color blind and can distinguish PURPLE. (I can't assume any basic skills at this point)

Moving towards today (moving towards the RIGHT on the chart) we have 3 numbers:

2.1, 2.5, and 2.4. PERCENT.

Are they exactly the same number? No.
Do they have to be exactly the same number for Clinton's comment to be correct? No.

The change is so miniscule as to mean nothing. At most .004 change and at least .001 change - GETTING WORSE TOWARDS THE PRESENT!

You're a dumbfuck of the highest order. So rabid and so partisan that no one would ever take anything you say as valid for any reason. I hope you enjoy that. You must be able to survive on convincing yourself that you win these pointless forum points - because I doubt you get any validation from outside sources.

Cliff's Notes: You lie, making your posts worthless.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks for posting a chart that proved Clinton right. Let me interpret your own chart for you, since you seem to need it.

Clinton said "20 years"...that means we start with the PURPLE bar. Please tell me you're not color blind and can distinguish PURPLE. (I can't assume any basic skills at this point)

Moving towards today (moving towards the RIGHT on the chart) we have 3 numbers:

2.1, 2.5, and 2.4. PERCENT.

Are they exactly the same number? No.
Do they have to be exactly the same number for Clinton's comment to be correct? No.

The change is so miniscule as to mean nothing. At most .004 change and at least .001 change - GETTING WORSE TOWARDS THE PRESENT!

You're a dumbfuck of the highest order. So rabid and so partisan that no one would ever take anything you say as valid for any reason. I hope you enjoy that. You must be able to survive on convincing yourself that you win these pointless forum points - because I doubt you get any validation from outside sources.

Cliff's Notes: You lie, making your posts worthless.

Darn I should have bet money. I knew you couldn't read a chart.
You lose, asshole.

 

[Vanquish]

That's your response?

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You can't even argue about my interpretation of the chart! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

What a fucking pathetic loser. Hell, at least CaliGirl or RetArmy would go back to the chart and try to dispute me. You couldnt even do THAT!!

 

[The Rabbi]

That's your response?

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You can't even argue about my interpretation of the chart! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

What a fucking pathetic loser. Hell, at least CaliGirl or RetArmy would go back to the chart and try to dispute me. You couldnt even do THAT!!

You are simply embarrassing yourself. You clearly do not understand what the chart says or how to read it. It is obvious, painfully obvious. I would just shut up and go on to another thread if I were you.

 

[Vanquish]

But yet you can't point out any of what you claim.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

Specifics, tardo. Don't fool yourself, I don't think you'll actually come up with a real response. But see, the way people who actually discuss real issues would expect that from you next.

Me - addressed the chart directly
You - couldn't address an envelope

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

 

[deepthunk]

Wow. You really rushed to prove my point!

That's all this stupid twit is capable of.
She has to be spoonfed her opinions mixed with baby food.

Anyone who attacks the position of another with nothing more than random insults is clearly doing so because they themselves are incapable of making a rational argument that disproves the position they wish to oppose. Insulting someone is nothing more than a means to control the conversation by diverting from the fact that you have no rational argument to make.
See how I did that? I didn’t just call you a halfwit, I made a rational statement to support my position, and then I flatly stated that you’re a moron.

 

[deepthunk]

That's your response?

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You can't even argue about my interpretation of the chart! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

What a fucking pathetic loser. Hell, at least CaliGirl or RetArmy would go back to the chart and try to dispute me. You couldnt even do THAT!!

You are simply embarrassing yourself. You clearly do not understand what the chart says or how to read it. It is obvious, painfully obvious. I would just shut up and go on to another thread if I were you.

Actually you’re the one who clearly doesn’t understand the vary material you yourself has posted. The chart only displays the gross increase in GDP over the given timeframes, this is a measure of productivity and in order to analyze efficiency one must compare the growth in GDP versus the growth in population over the same period. If the GDP rises faster than population, efficiency is increasing, if population rises faster efficiency is decreasing.
I am not certain whether Clintons statement regarding efficiency is accurate or not (I’m thinking its not), but the bar graph you have posted is irrelevant to the discussion as it only shows increases in GDP but doesn’t compare that figure to population.

 

[The Rabbi]

But yet you can't point out any of what you claim.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

Specifics, tardo. Don't fool yourself, I don't think you'll actually come up with a real response. But see, the way people who actually discuss real issues would expect that from you next.

Me - addressed the chart directly
You - couldn't address an envelope

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Geezus, what a clown. On the off chance you might understand this here goes:
The chart is labeled "Prductivity Change in the Non-Farm sector." Note it does not mean total productivity, only the rate of change. Note that in every period the rate of change is positive, meaning that productivity grew in EVERY period. This is cumulative. There was no regression in productivity.
So obviously American productivity has not stayed the same over 20 years. It has grown over 7% in the last 20 years. You get this number by taking a base of 100, adding the productivity for the first period, then add the productivity for the second period on top of the increased base from the first, and then the same with the third. You will come up with 7.16% total increase.

But I'll bet even having explained to you the chart is not TOTAL productivity but only CHANGE in productivity and every period is positive you still will insist somehow you are right.

 

[Vanquish]

But yet you can't point out any of what you claim.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

Specifics, tardo. Don't fool yourself, I don't think you'll actually come up with a real response. But see, the way people who actually discuss real issues would expect that from you next.

Me - addressed the chart directly
You - couldn't address an envelope

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Geezus, what a clown. On the off chance you might understand this here goes:
The chart is labeled "Prductivity Change in the Non-Farm sector." Note it does not mean total productivity, only the rate of change. Note that in every period the rate of change is positive, meaning that productivity grew in EVERY period. This is cumulative. There was no regression in productivity.
So obviously American productivity has not stayed the same over 20 years. It has grown over 7% in the last 20 years. You get this number by taking a base of 100, adding the productivity for the first period, then add the productivity for the second period on top of the increased base from the first, and then the same with the third. You will come up with 7.16% total increase.

But I'll bet even having explained to you the chart is not TOTAL productivity but only CHANGE in productivity and every period is positive you still will insist somehow you are right.

First, it's about damn time you actually addressed the content of the conversation. Glad I could teach you that much.

Second, you assumed that I meant it was the rate of change year over year not the change in the rate of change. I never specifically said...assuming you knew what you were talking about. Guess you didn't. Why would you want to know the change in the rate of change? Google accelerator effect and you might get a clue. Maaaaaybe. If someone smart is standing over your shoulder.

Third, compare that 20 years to what came before it. Pretty pathetic, really. We've seen much higher. And you'll notice the bouncing within a pretty crappy range.

You can do all the adding up you want. You're still wrong.
Finally, you don't have to be such a supreme dick when you respond to people. Maybe it's because your mother picks out your clothes, you're reveling in the anonymity of an internet forum board, or maybe just that your penile enlargement didn't work out quite how you hoped...but dude. You're a joke. You don't "win" these posts...you just make yourself look idiotic.

Back on subject...

Read this article...
The Continuing Decline of US Productivity

I'll highlight the pretty pictures for you:

and

At least read the conclusion, which backs up what many of us have said...

Capital stock is the total inflation adjusted value of all “business equipment” in the US. That’s machines, robots, vehicles, tools, software, computers, pencils, paper...the whole shebang. For the first time since World War II, US capital stock is contracting. Meaning, employers are not reinvesting in their equipment. More machines are left broken or outdated than are being replaced or upgraded.

Employers likely underinvested in capital stock during the darkest days of the credit crisis. But why aren’t they catching up now? Perhaps worker productivity is down – along with capital stock – because there’s simply not enough business to warrant investment...either in people or equipment.

...it's a lack of demand that's fucking us up. Either we don't have enough consumers with enough wages to support our economy...or conservatives have hoodwinked businesses into thinking that things are so bad out there they need to save themselves at all costs.

I'm glad you at least learned to take your lumps and address the meat of the post. Not that there was any meat on your post.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so now you are claiming to say something you clearly did not say.
What a fucking geeter.

 

[Vanquish]

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Though if I were, I'd simply be doing EXACTLY what you do - claiming I've said something I clearly didn't say. You lie about what I say and claim it as Bible fact.

Shame you had to revert away from the actual topic again. Predicatable, expected, obvious.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Though if I were, I'd simply be doing EXACTLY what you do - claiming I've said something I clearly didn't say. You lie about what I say and claim it as Bible fact.

Shame you had to revert away from the actual topic again. Predicatable, expected, obvious.

You quoted Bill Clinton as saying something about productivity and I showed it wasn't true. IN the course of that you showed you cannot read and interpret a bar graph correctly. To cover it up you throw a bunch of BS around to obfuscate.
Pitiful, "counselor" <snort>

 

[Vanquish]

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Though if I were, I'd simply be doing EXACTLY what you do - claiming I've said something I clearly didn't say. You lie about what I say and claim it as Bible fact.

Shame you had to revert away from the actual topic again. Predicatable, expected, obvious.

You quoted Bill Clinton as saying something about productivity and I showed it wasn't true. IN the course of that you showed you cannot read and interpret a bar graph correctly. To cover it up you throw a bunch of BS around to obfuscate.
Pitiful, "counselor" <snort>

That's a total and complete lie. Which is your usual tactic. If you repeat the same shit over and over somehow you delude yourself into thinking people on this board are reading it and caring. Meanwhile, nothing could be further from reality.

You (here) ------------------------------------§ (the milky way galaxy)----------------reality

Keep it up though. That "command center" you live in might impress someone really soon.

 

[deepthunk]

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Though if I were, I'd simply be doing EXACTLY what you do - claiming I've said something I clearly didn't say. You lie about what I say and claim it as Bible fact.

Shame you had to revert away from the actual topic again. Predicatable, expected, obvious.

You quoted Bill Clinton as saying something about productivity and I showed it wasn't true. IN the course of that you showed you cannot read and interpret a bar graph correctly. To cover it up you throw a bunch of BS around to obfuscate.
Pitiful, "counselor" <snort>

I love the way you called me a “dunce” when you attacked my reputation, and yet I made a perfectly factual statement which you have chosen to ignore. Clearly this indicates that you are unable to defend your position publicly due to the fact that you are only repeating republican rhetoric and then trying to find justification for said rhetoric after your statements have been made.
You can feel free to resort to childish name calling all you want, by doing so you clearly demonstrate that you lack the intellectual capacity to do anything else. Furthermore you have clearly demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding the material you yourself post in defense of indefensible rhetoric that you simply repeat like a parrot because you are simply not intelligent enough to understand the issues at hand.
You may be willing to blindly follow conservative pundits like the proverbial lemming as they try to lead the country off a cliff, I however prefer to think for myself.
Notice that you can call people names all day like a spoiled five year old, but I will logically prove your stupidity as an attorney proves a case in a court of law. Tell me which do you feel is more poignant?
To reiterate the post you pointedly chose to ignore,
I am not certain whether Clintons statement regarding efficiency is accurate or not (I’m thinking its not), but the bar graph you have posted is irrelevant to the discussion as it only shows increases in GDP but doesn’t compare that figure to population. Perhaps you’re unaware that efficiency and productivity are not the same thing. They are related in that productivity is used to determine efficiency, but they are in fact two different figures which are separately important for different reasons.
On a side note, all the name calling in the world is not going to chase me away, nor will it get me angry and therefore it will not prevent me from responding, hence this common conservative tactic for controlling the discussion will fail with me every time.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are clearly a dunce. The graph I posted showed no such thing. It was clearly labeled and came from the BLS website. You cannot read and make shit up.
And at the end of the day you agree with me that Clinton lied about it.