According to PolitiFact, the RNC has lied more than the DNC has

[Billy000]

Or you could actually have an open mind and examine the evidence, like ladyliberal.



Given the actual data, and the fact that Politifact admits to bias itself, you might want to admit I just might have a point rather than dismiss it simply because you do not like the inevitable conclusion.

Ladyliberal has a point, you do not. All you did was link an article you found. I'll defer to her on this one.

Let me get this straight.

You ask for evidence of bias, I provide, and you reject it because it comes from me. Ladyliberal, who has a real brain, looks at the same evidence I provided, and concludes that the evidence indicates Politifact might have a problem, and you think she has a point. Is it remotely possible that the problem here is you, not me?

I give you credit for posting the article, but it was Ladyliberal who analyzed it. Giving you both the same amount of credit just wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Oldstyle]

How accurate they are is a separate issue. Okay, so why was it biased in your opinion? What did you find if you actually did look around?

Their opinions are based upon factual analysis unlike yours.

No, their opinions are based upon a judgement whether or not someone has told a lie...not told a lie...or somewhere in between. I'm sorry if you've decided that "their" opinion now constitutes fact, Billy but to me it's still just "their" opinion.

As for the rest? My opinion is based upon analysis of the same circumstances as their's...the difference being...we reach different conclusions. Why does PolitiFact's conclusion count for more than mine...or yours...or any number of other people's?

Their opinion does not trump anyone else who does balanced, in-depth research.

Which brings us full circle, Billy...who determines what is "balanced"? YOU have made the judgement that PolitiFact is balanced because you agree with the conclusions they reach...I, on the other hand, don't think they are because I don't agree with the conclusions they reach.

One of my favorite quotations about statistics is the following...

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination." Andrew Lang

What Lang is getting at is that most people seek out statistics only to prove a point of view they already hold rather than let the statistics determine their point of view.

 

[Billy000]

No, their opinions are based upon a judgement whether or not someone has told a lie...not told a lie...or somewhere in between. I'm sorry if you've decided that "their" opinion now constitutes fact, Billy but to me it's still just "their" opinion.

As for the rest? My opinion is based upon analysis of the same circumstances as their's...the difference being...we reach different conclusions. Why does PolitiFact's conclusion count for more than mine...or yours...or any number of other people's?

Their opinion does not trump anyone else who does balanced, in-depth research.

Which brings us full circle, Billy...who determines what is "balanced"? YOU have made the judgement that PolitiFact is balanced because you agree with the conclusions they reach...I, on the other hand, don't think they are because I don't agree with the conclusions they reach.

One of my favorite quotations about statistics is the following...

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination." Andrew Lang

What Lang is getting at is that most people seek out statistics only to prove a point of view they already hold rather than let the statistics determine their point of view.

If statistics was all they used as evidence, you'd have a point. You make it sound like trying to objective is a waste. That is just ridiculous.

You disagree with all of the conclusions they make, huh? If not all, then which ones and why? What are you even basing your opinion on?

PolitiFact is not perfect, but until someone shows me something better, I will rely on them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ladyliberal has a point, you do not. All you did was link an article you found. I'll defer to her on this one.

Let me get this straight.

You ask for evidence of bias, I provide, and you reject it because it comes from me. Ladyliberal, who has a real brain, looks at the same evidence I provided, and concludes that the evidence indicates Politifact might have a problem, and you think she has a point. Is it remotely possible that the problem here is you, not me?

I give you credit for posting the article, but it was Ladyliberal who analyzed it. Giving you both the same amount of credit just wouldn't make any sense.

What makes you think I did not analyze it? Just because I did not take the time to provide an analysis does not mean I just linked to it. I must have analyzed it before I posted it because I used it to support my contention that Politifact is biased. Or do you think everyone is like you, posting stuff in the hope that they find something that makes them look smart?

By the way, I base that conclusion on the fact that you read the link I provided it and rejected it because it was not persuasive, yet you accepted it after I pointed out that ladyliberal had read it and reached the conclusion that it just might show bias on the part of Politifact. In other words, I analyzed your posts and came to the conclusion that you are unable to analyze anything, you need it explained to you.

 

[Oldstyle]

Their opinion does not trump anyone else who does balanced, in-depth research.

Which brings us full circle, Billy...who determines what is "balanced"? YOU have made the judgement that PolitiFact is balanced because you agree with the conclusions they reach...I, on the other hand, don't think they are because I don't agree with the conclusions they reach.

One of my favorite quotations about statistics is the following...

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination." Andrew Lang

What Lang is getting at is that most people seek out statistics only to prove a point of view they already hold rather than let the statistics determine their point of view.

If statistics was all they used as evidence, you'd have a point. You make it sound like trying to objective is a waste. That is just ridiculous.

You disagree with all of the conclusions they make, huh? If not all, then which ones and why? What are you even basing your opinion on?

PolitiFact is not perfect, but until someone shows me something better, I will rely on them.

Why do you need to rely on someone else to "show" you something? I'm assuming if you follow the news you know what has and hasn't happened. I'd also like to think that since you voted for Barack Obama in 2008 that you did so because you liked major parts of his platform? So it's been three years...do you think he's lived up to what he promised you? Do you need PolitiFact or some other source to tell you whether he's lived up to the promises that he made?

And just between you and me, Billy? I put so little store in what politicians say when they are running for office that they might as well save their breath. The only thing that counts in my book is what they've DONE in the past. The rest is usually bullshit.

 

[Billy000]

Which brings us full circle, Billy...who determines what is "balanced"? YOU have made the judgement that PolitiFact is balanced because you agree with the conclusions they reach...I, on the other hand, don't think they are because I don't agree with the conclusions they reach.

One of my favorite quotations about statistics is the following...

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination." Andrew Lang

What Lang is getting at is that most people seek out statistics only to prove a point of view they already hold rather than let the statistics determine their point of view.

If statistics was all they used as evidence, you'd have a point. You make it sound like trying to objective is a waste. That is just ridiculous.

You disagree with all of the conclusions they make, huh? If not all, then which ones and why? What are you even basing your opinion on?

PolitiFact is not perfect, but until someone shows me something better, I will rely on them.

Why do you need to rely on someone else to "show" you something? I'm assuming if you follow the news you know what has and hasn't happened. I'd also like to think that since you voted for Barack Obama in 2008 that you did so because you liked major parts of his platform? So it's been three years...do you think he's lived up to what he promised you? Do you need PolitiFact or some other source to tell you whether he's lived up to the promises that he made?

And just between you and me, Billy? I put so little store in what politicians say when they are running for office that they might as well save their breath. The only thing that counts in my book is what they've DONE in the past. The rest is usually bullshit.

My point is that you don't have an informed opinion on PolitiFact. Otherwise, you would have come up with something.

I've been a little disappointed with Obama, but I think for the most part he has accomplished a lot. I really don't have any reason to believe he's impeded economic progress. In fact, I know that the growth in the last 6 months is mostly attributed to Obama's stimulus package. Also, so far, I have no reason to believe Obama has had a direct link to the unemployment rate.

What have I been disappointed with Obama is his over use of diplomacy with Republicans. It's proven to be costly.

 

[Oldstyle]

If statistics was all they used as evidence, you'd have a point. You make it sound like trying to objective is a waste. That is just ridiculous.

You disagree with all of the conclusions they make, huh? If not all, then which ones and why? What are you even basing your opinion on?

PolitiFact is not perfect, but until someone shows me something better, I will rely on them.

Why do you need to rely on someone else to "show" you something? I'm assuming if you follow the news you know what has and hasn't happened. I'd also like to think that since you voted for Barack Obama in 2008 that you did so because you liked major parts of his platform? So it's been three years...do you think he's lived up to what he promised you? Do you need PolitiFact or some other source to tell you whether he's lived up to the promises that he made?

And just between you and me, Billy? I put so little store in what politicians say when they are running for office that they might as well save their breath. The only thing that counts in my book is what they've DONE in the past. The rest is usually bullshit.

My point is that you don't have an informed opinion on PolitiFact. Otherwise, you would have come up with something.

I've been a little disappointed with Obama, but I think for the most part he has accomplished a lot. I really don't have any reason to believe he's impeded economic progress. In fact, I know that the growth in the last 6 months is mostly attributed to Obama's stimulus package. Also, so far, I have no reason to believe Obama has had a direct link to the unemployment rate.

What have I been disappointed with Obama is his over use of diplomacy with Republicans. It's proven to be costly.

My opinion isn't "informed"? Why...because I don't agree with yours? Come on, Billy...I think we both know at this point that I am informed. I'm a bit of a political "wonk". It's a subject that I find interesting and I follow quite closely. Please don't make the mistake of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.

So you don't think Obama's impeded economic progress? Fine, let's look at his record then...

When he initially took office what did he make his number one priority for year one? Can we agree that it was ObamaCare? Let's be honest here...the economy was put on a back burner by the Obama White House while they made an all out push for health care reform. It wasn't until the unemployment numbers had been stuck over 9% for the longest period since the Great Depression and ObamaCare had been passed that his focus turned to the economy. So tell me...do you think ObamaCare hurt or helped the economy? I'm sorry but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks ObamaCare is going to create jobs or grow the economy. It's another unfunded entitlement program that will suck capital OUT of the system.

Let's see...what else had Obama been pushing for his first year? Cap & Trade legislation and Card Check legislation? He backed off on both issues BECAUSE the economy was so bad and moderate Democrats wouldn't support them because they were "jobs killers".

Now he did pass a "stimulus" package. The question is...did the Obama Stimulus do more to help the overall economy and lower unemployment or was it more of a payback to core Obama supporters in the 2008 elections? Well, we know that it gave a lot of money to "green energy" companies that were staunch supporters of the President. We also know that money given to "green industry" hasn't paid off well in jobs created. He also gave a lot of money to keep public sector workers employed...especially teachers. So did that help the overall economy as much as pumping that money into the private sector? You be the judge...the stimulus money has run out and now we're being told that State and local public sector people are in danger of being laid off again if we don't pony up an additional stimulus package. How did the stimulus "work" if we have to keep repeating it over and over while the economy limps along at an anemic 1% growth rate and unemployment stays over 9%?

I'm curious, Billy...are you familiar with how the economy normally reacts following a recession? If you look at the economic history of the country I think you'd find that the US economy tends to bounce back rather strongly following a depression. Yet we're not seeing that after three years of Obama economic policy. So at what point does it become obvious that we aren't getting the normal bounce because of policy that's affecting growth?

 

[Billy000]

Why do you need to rely on someone else to "show" you something? I'm assuming if you follow the news you know what has and hasn't happened. I'd also like to think that since you voted for Barack Obama in 2008 that you did so because you liked major parts of his platform? So it's been three years...do you think he's lived up to what he promised you? Do you need PolitiFact or some other source to tell you whether he's lived up to the promises that he made?

And just between you and me, Billy? I put so little store in what politicians say when they are running for office that they might as well save their breath. The only thing that counts in my book is what they've DONE in the past. The rest is usually bullshit.

My point is that you don't have an informed opinion on PolitiFact. Otherwise, you would have come up with something.

I've been a little disappointed with Obama, but I think for the most part he has accomplished a lot. I really don't have any reason to believe he's impeded economic progress. In fact, I know that the growth in the last 6 months is mostly attributed to Obama's stimulus package. Also, so far, I have no reason to believe Obama has had a direct link to the unemployment rate.

What have I been disappointed with Obama is his over use of diplomacy with Republicans. It's proven to be costly.

My opinion isn't "informed"? Why...because I don't agree with yours? Come on, Billy...I think we both know at this point that I am informed. I'm a bit of a political "wonk". It's a subject that I find interesting and I follow quite closely. Please don't make the mistake of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.

So you don't think Obama's impeded economic progress? Fine, let's look at his record then...

When he initially took office what did he make his number one priority for year one? Can we agree that it was ObamaCare? Let's be honest here...the economy was put on a back burner by the Obama White House while they made an all out push for health care reform. It wasn't until the unemployment numbers had been stuck over 9% for the longest period since the Great Depression and ObamaCare had been passed that his focus turned to the economy. So tell me...do you think ObamaCare hurt or helped the economy? I'm sorry but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks ObamaCare is going to create jobs or grow the economy. It's another unfunded entitlement program that will suck capital OUT of the system.

Let's see...what else had Obama been pushing for his first year? Cap & Trade legislation and Card Check legislation? He backed off on both issues BECAUSE the economy was so bad and moderate Democrats wouldn't support them because they were "jobs killers".

Now he did pass a "stimulus" package. The question is...did the Obama Stimulus do more to help the overall economy and lower unemployment or was it more of a payback to core Obama supporters in the 2008 elections? Well, we know that it gave a lot of money to "green energy" companies that were staunch supporters of the President. We also know that money given to "green industry" hasn't paid off well in jobs created. He also gave a lot of money to keep public sector workers employed...especially teachers. So did that help the overall economy as much as pumping that money into the private sector? You be the judge...the stimulus money has run out and now we're being told that State and local public sector people are in danger of being laid off again if we don't pony up an additional stimulus package. How did the stimulus "work" if we have to keep repeating it over and over while the economy limps along at an anemic 1% growth rate and unemployment stays over 9%?

I'm curious, Billy...are you familiar with how the economy normally reacts following a recession? If you look at the economic history of the country I think you'd find that the US economy tends to bounce back rather strongly following a depression. Yet we're not seeing that after three years of Obama economic policy. So at what point does it become obvious that we aren't getting the normal bounce because of policy that's affecting growth?

This post is so full of fluff.

You and I know both know that you are twisting my words. I never said you didn't have an informed opinion in general, I said that you did not have an informed opinion about PolitiFact.

We have already had this discussion about the affect the stimulus had. There is no denying that it was positive. It created 2.5 million jobs and saved even more.

You are wrong about the green sector. To my understanding about 25 billion of the simulus money went to the "Green sector". Already we have seen close to 300,000 jobs already created, with a projection at 5 million green jobs to be created by 2019. I am not sure how much money went to the education sector, but about 115,000 teaching jobs have been created. I'm not sure how many government jobs were created in total, but I doubt the number is close to the amount of private jobs created.

I'm still not convinced Obama's policies have directly increased the unemployment rate. The cap and trade issue is irrelevant considering Obama never got it through in the first place.

And if stimulus packages are not the answer, then what is exactly? You tell me (and Obama): What's the key to jump starting the economy? Don't you say tax breaks for the wealthy because you would be wrong.

 

[code1211]

PolitiFact | Democratic National Committee's file

PolitiFact | Republican National Committee's file

The DNC has 27 statements and the RNC has 26.

If you feel the need to say that PolitiFact is biased, then prove your claim.

I clicked on the first link in the RNC File and watched as Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to answer the question about unemployment. The question asked was whether on not unemployment had increased under the Big 0.

Wasserman Schultz refused to answer that question and repeatedly framed her answer with regard to the unemployment RATE.

Using this as the fig leaf, the Politifact rating system said that the RNC was mostly false.

Huh?!!?!?

Unemployment under the Big 0 HAS increased and only by employing the ridiculous methodology used to figure the RATE can the charade be maintained that Unemployment has NOT increased.

If this is the measure of the Politifact credibility, you may consider it proven wrong.

Is this a serious attempt to reveal anything other than your own political bias?

 

[code1211]

Hey Doc... how come you Conservatives never blink an eye at the private sector? I mean... if Critical thinking is ACTUALLY a skill.... then it should apply to them too, right?

Don't get me wrong... I agree with you. Politicians will do what they do to get elected. But the big difference, it seems to me... is that Progressives use those critical thinking skills beyond the scope of the government, where Conservatives don't.

Care to give an example of that critical thinking as it pertains to the formulation of a budget?

 

[Full-Auto]

My point is that you don't have an informed opinion on PolitiFact. Otherwise, you would have come up with something.

I've been a little disappointed with Obama, but I think for the most part he has accomplished a lot. I really don't have any reason to believe he's impeded economic progress. In fact, I know that the growth in the last 6 months is mostly attributed to Obama's stimulus package. Also, so far, I have no reason to believe Obama has had a direct link to the unemployment rate.

What have I been disappointed with Obama is his over use of diplomacy with Republicans. It's proven to be costly.

My opinion isn't "informed"? Why...because I don't agree with yours? Come on, Billy...I think we both know at this point that I am informed. I'm a bit of a political "wonk". It's a subject that I find interesting and I follow quite closely. Please don't make the mistake of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.

So you don't think Obama's impeded economic progress? Fine, let's look at his record then...

When he initially took office what did he make his number one priority for year one? Can we agree that it was ObamaCare? Let's be honest here...the economy was put on a back burner by the Obama White House while they made an all out push for health care reform. It wasn't until the unemployment numbers had been stuck over 9% for the longest period since the Great Depression and ObamaCare had been passed that his focus turned to the economy. So tell me...do you think ObamaCare hurt or helped the economy? I'm sorry but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks ObamaCare is going to create jobs or grow the economy. It's another unfunded entitlement program that will suck capital OUT of the system.

Let's see...what else had Obama been pushing for his first year? Cap & Trade legislation and Card Check legislation? He backed off on both issues BECAUSE the economy was so bad and moderate Democrats wouldn't support them because they were "jobs killers".

Now he did pass a "stimulus" package. The question is...did the Obama Stimulus do more to help the overall economy and lower unemployment or was it more of a payback to core Obama supporters in the 2008 elections? Well, we know that it gave a lot of money to "green energy" companies that were staunch supporters of the President. We also know that money given to "green industry" hasn't paid off well in jobs created. He also gave a lot of money to keep public sector workers employed...especially teachers. So did that help the overall economy as much as pumping that money into the private sector? You be the judge...the stimulus money has run out and now we're being told that State and local public sector people are in danger of being laid off again if we don't pony up an additional stimulus package. How did the stimulus "work" if we have to keep repeating it over and over while the economy limps along at an anemic 1% growth rate and unemployment stays over 9%?

I'm curious, Billy...are you familiar with how the economy normally reacts following a recession? If you look at the economic history of the country I think you'd find that the US economy tends to bounce back rather strongly following a depression. Yet we're not seeing that after three years of Obama economic policy. So at what point does it become obvious that we aren't getting the normal bounce because of policy that's affecting growth?

This post is so full of fluff.

You and I know both know that you are twisting my words. I never said you didn't have an informed opinion in general, I said that you did not have an informed opinion about PolitiFact.

We have already had this discussion about the affect the stimulus had. There is no denying that it was positive. It created 2.5 million jobs and saved even more.

You are wrong about the green sector. To my understanding about 25 billion of the simulus money went to the "Green sector". Already we have seen close to 300,000 jobs already created, with a projection at 5 million green jobs to be created by 2019. I am not sure how much money went to the education sector, but about 115,000 teaching jobs have been created. I'm not sure how many government jobs were created in total, but I doubt the number is close to the amount of private jobs created.

I'm still not convinced Obama's policies have directly increased the unemployment rate. The cap and trade issue is irrelevant considering Obama never got it through in the first place.

And if stimulus packages are not the answer, then what is exactly? You tell me (and Obama): What's the key to jump starting the economy? Don't you say tax breaks for the wealthy because you would be wrong.

In case you missed it.

Code just ate your lunch.

 

[code1211]

What is sad that Billllllllllyyyyyyyy is comparing two national political orgs on the basis of who lied less.

Does it not bother anyone that either of them lied at all.

Talk about stupid partisan worship.

I detest the RNC.

How could you detest one and not the other?

 

[Oldstyle]

My point is that you don't have an informed opinion on PolitiFact. Otherwise, you would have come up with something.

I've been a little disappointed with Obama, but I think for the most part he has accomplished a lot. I really don't have any reason to believe he's impeded economic progress. In fact, I know that the growth in the last 6 months is mostly attributed to Obama's stimulus package. Also, so far, I have no reason to believe Obama has had a direct link to the unemployment rate.

What have I been disappointed with Obama is his over use of diplomacy with Republicans. It's proven to be costly.

My opinion isn't "informed"? Why...because I don't agree with yours? Come on, Billy...I think we both know at this point that I am informed. I'm a bit of a political "wonk". It's a subject that I find interesting and I follow quite closely. Please don't make the mistake of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.

So you don't think Obama's impeded economic progress? Fine, let's look at his record then...

When he initially took office what did he make his number one priority for year one? Can we agree that it was ObamaCare? Let's be honest here...the economy was put on a back burner by the Obama White House while they made an all out push for health care reform. It wasn't until the unemployment numbers had been stuck over 9% for the longest period since the Great Depression and ObamaCare had been passed that his focus turned to the economy. So tell me...do you think ObamaCare hurt or helped the economy? I'm sorry but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks ObamaCare is going to create jobs or grow the economy. It's another unfunded entitlement program that will suck capital OUT of the system.

Let's see...what else had Obama been pushing for his first year? Cap & Trade legislation and Card Check legislation? He backed off on both issues BECAUSE the economy was so bad and moderate Democrats wouldn't support them because they were "jobs killers".

Now he did pass a "stimulus" package. The question is...did the Obama Stimulus do more to help the overall economy and lower unemployment or was it more of a payback to core Obama supporters in the 2008 elections? Well, we know that it gave a lot of money to "green energy" companies that were staunch supporters of the President. We also know that money given to "green industry" hasn't paid off well in jobs created. He also gave a lot of money to keep public sector workers employed...especially teachers. So did that help the overall economy as much as pumping that money into the private sector? You be the judge...the stimulus money has run out and now we're being told that State and local public sector people are in danger of being laid off again if we don't pony up an additional stimulus package. How did the stimulus "work" if we have to keep repeating it over and over while the economy limps along at an anemic 1% growth rate and unemployment stays over 9%?

I'm curious, Billy...are you familiar with how the economy normally reacts following a recession? If you look at the economic history of the country I think you'd find that the US economy tends to bounce back rather strongly following a depression. Yet we're not seeing that after three years of Obama economic policy. So at what point does it become obvious that we aren't getting the normal bounce because of policy that's affecting growth?

This post is so full of fluff.

You and I know both know that you are twisting my words. I never said you didn't have an informed opinion in general, I said that you did not have an informed opinion about PolitiFact.

We have already had this discussion about the affect the stimulus had. There is no denying that it was positive. It created 2.5 million jobs and saved even more.

You are wrong about the green sector. To my understanding about 25 billion of the simulus money went to the "Green sector". Already we have seen close to 300,000 jobs already created, with a projection at 5 million green jobs to be created by 2019. I am not sure how much money went to the education sector, but about 115,000 teaching jobs have been created. I'm not sure how many government jobs were created in total, but I doubt the number is close to the amount of private jobs created.

I'm still not convinced Obama's policies have directly increased the unemployment rate. The cap and trade issue is irrelevant considering Obama never got it through in the first place.

And if stimulus packages are not the answer, then what is exactly? You tell me (and Obama): What's the key to jump starting the economy? Don't you say tax breaks for the wealthy because you would be wrong.

You say my post was "fluff"? Fine, lets see if your post has any "substance" to it.

First of all...you've failed to maintain the "jobs created or saved" facade, Billy. Come on...you don't actually expect us to believe that 115,000 teaching jobs were created? You know that isn't the case...those were jobs that were "saved"...that whole new category invented by this Administration to put a better face on failure.

Now let's take your claim that 300,000 jobs have been created in the Green Sector. Do those include the jobs at the companies like Solyndra that have already gone belly up after wasting all of our tax payer money? Here's an article from that stauch conservative news source The New York Times pointing out the shortcomings of Obama's green jobs initiatives...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19bcgreen.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3

Read that and then tell me if you're still "comfortable" making the claim that we're going to create 5 million new jobs in green industry by 2019. Let me give you a hint...when The New York Times is calling such a claim, a "pipedream" then you KNOW that it's bullshit.

You say that Cap & Trade is "irrelevant" because it was never passed? Anything that causes uncertainty in business generally results in caution being exercised. You've got a President stumping from one end of the country to the other calling for Cap & Trade to be passed with Super Majorities in Congress yet you don't think that affected decisions by businesses on whether or not to invest in new plants that would have to operate under the huge additional costs associated with that legislation?

You ask me what the "key" is to jump starting the economy? A great start would be giving business owners some certainty going forward that you aren't going to raise their taxes or impose additional costs on them in the form of new regulations. I would strongly suggest "repatriating" profits made over seas without additional taxes on them if they are used to invest in new jobs or infrastructure here. I would also suggest passing a budget so we don't have the constant threat of a governmental shutdown looming over our heads. I would suggest the President actually propose spending cuts instead of kicking that can down the road a few years or abdicating that responsibility to some Super Committee. I would also suggest that he stop using tax increases on the wealthy as a political soap box when even Christina Romer has come out and said raising taxes on ANYONE in this weak an economy isn't a fiscally sound thing to do.

 

[Freedomlover]

If you could go to the past year of the Cleveland Plain Dealer you would see that they have sighted more Rep. statements than Dem.

For what it is worth Politfact's pick for the Lie of the Year was the the Dems 'mediscare" lies about Paul Ryan's plan presented in the House budget.

 

[Big Fitz]

LOL... what a honey trap for the left watching them try and defend their little dot com darling. Oh the hysteria is amazing, and quite entertaining so far.

 

[The T]

LOL... what a honey trap for the left watching them try and defend their little dot com darling. Oh the hysteria is amazing, and quite entertaining so far.

Indeed..."See mommy? They lied MORE than we did..."

 

[Big Fitz]

LOL... what a honey trap for the left watching them try and defend their little dot com darling. Oh the hysteria is amazing, and quite entertaining so far.

Indeed..."See mommy? They lied MORE than we did..."

Yeah. I'm sick of "Mommy Statists". I want a Daddy State. You know "Quit whining about how come Timmy has more than you, he earned it. Now if you don't shut up I'll give you something to REALLY cry about! Get back to your chores!"

 

[Billy000]

My opinion isn't "informed"? Why...because I don't agree with yours? Come on, Billy...I think we both know at this point that I am informed. I'm a bit of a political "wonk". It's a subject that I find interesting and I follow quite closely. Please don't make the mistake of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.

So you don't think Obama's impeded economic progress? Fine, let's look at his record then...

When he initially took office what did he make his number one priority for year one? Can we agree that it was ObamaCare? Let's be honest here...the economy was put on a back burner by the Obama White House while they made an all out push for health care reform. It wasn't until the unemployment numbers had been stuck over 9% for the longest period since the Great Depression and ObamaCare had been passed that his focus turned to the economy. So tell me...do you think ObamaCare hurt or helped the economy? I'm sorry but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks ObamaCare is going to create jobs or grow the economy. It's another unfunded entitlement program that will suck capital OUT of the system.

Let's see...what else had Obama been pushing for his first year? Cap & Trade legislation and Card Check legislation? He backed off on both issues BECAUSE the economy was so bad and moderate Democrats wouldn't support them because they were "jobs killers".

Now he did pass a "stimulus" package. The question is...did the Obama Stimulus do more to help the overall economy and lower unemployment or was it more of a payback to core Obama supporters in the 2008 elections? Well, we know that it gave a lot of money to "green energy" companies that were staunch supporters of the President. We also know that money given to "green industry" hasn't paid off well in jobs created. He also gave a lot of money to keep public sector workers employed...especially teachers. So did that help the overall economy as much as pumping that money into the private sector? You be the judge...the stimulus money has run out and now we're being told that State and local public sector people are in danger of being laid off again if we don't pony up an additional stimulus package. How did the stimulus "work" if we have to keep repeating it over and over while the economy limps along at an anemic 1% growth rate and unemployment stays over 9%?

I'm curious, Billy...are you familiar with how the economy normally reacts following a recession? If you look at the economic history of the country I think you'd find that the US economy tends to bounce back rather strongly following a depression. Yet we're not seeing that after three years of Obama economic policy. So at what point does it become obvious that we aren't getting the normal bounce because of policy that's affecting growth?

This post is so full of fluff.

You and I know both know that you are twisting my words. I never said you didn't have an informed opinion in general, I said that you did not have an informed opinion about PolitiFact.

We have already had this discussion about the affect the stimulus had. There is no denying that it was positive. It created 2.5 million jobs and saved even more.

You are wrong about the green sector. To my understanding about 25 billion of the simulus money went to the "Green sector". Already we have seen close to 300,000 jobs already created, with a projection at 5 million green jobs to be created by 2019. I am not sure how much money went to the education sector, but about 115,000 teaching jobs have been created. I'm not sure how many government jobs were created in total, but I doubt the number is close to the amount of private jobs created.

I'm still not convinced Obama's policies have directly increased the unemployment rate. The cap and trade issue is irrelevant considering Obama never got it through in the first place.

And if stimulus packages are not the answer, then what is exactly? You tell me (and Obama): What's the key to jump starting the economy? Don't you say tax breaks for the wealthy because you would be wrong.

You say my post was "fluff"? Fine, lets see if your post has any "substance" to it.

First of all...you've failed to maintain the "jobs created or saved" facade, Billy. Come on...you don't actually expect us to believe that 115,000 teaching jobs were created? You know that isn't the case...those were jobs that were "saved"...that whole new category invented by this Administration to put a better face on failure.

Now let's take your claim that 300,000 jobs have been created in the Green Sector. Do those include the jobs at the companies like Solyndra that have already gone belly up after wasting all of our tax payer money? Here's an article from that stauch conservative news source The New York Times pointing out the shortcomings of Obama's green jobs initiatives...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19bcgreen.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3

Read that and then tell me if you're still "comfortable" making the claim that we're going to create 5 million new jobs in green industry by 2019. Let me give you a hint...when The New York Times is calling such a claim, a "pipedream" then you KNOW that it's bullshit.

You say that Cap & Trade is "irrelevant" because it was never passed? Anything that causes uncertainty in business generally results in caution being exercised. You've got a President stumping from one end of the country to the other calling for Cap & Trade to be passed with Super Majorities in Congress yet you don't think that affected decisions by businesses on whether or not to invest in new plants that would have to operate under the huge additional costs associated with that legislation?

You ask me what the "key" is to jump starting the economy? A great start would be giving business owners some certainty going forward that you aren't going to raise their taxes or impose additional costs on them in the form of new regulations. I would strongly suggest "repatriating" profits made over seas without additional taxes on them if they are used to invest in new jobs or infrastructure here. I would also suggest passing a budget so we don't have the constant threat of a governmental shutdown looming over our heads. I would suggest the President actually propose spending cuts instead of kicking that can down the road a few years or abdicating that responsibility to some Super Committee. I would also suggest that he stop using tax increases on the wealthy as a political soap box when even Christina Romer has come out and said raising taxes on ANYONE in this weak an economy isn't a fiscally sound thing to do.

Read my question from about two weeks ago which provides plenty of evidence for the "save and created jobs"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...obama-has-not-helped-create-or-save-jobs.html

I agree that the green jobs inititiative isn't living up to expectations, but that doesn't change the fact that 100,000s of jobs have been created thus far. We will have to wait and see how much of a failure/success it will be.

That giving certainty to businesses is such conservative bogus. Corporate profits and productivity are at all time highs. Tax rates for the wealthy and corporations are at an all time low. I seriously doubt they can't afford to create jobs based upon "uncertainty".

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/04/tax-rates-down-dramatically-super-wealthy/36755/

http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/

Here is the best source. Check out graphs 9,10, and 15 if not at all:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...nt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1



And Obama has proposed deficit reduction. His biggest was back in September at 4 trillion. It, of course, was rejected.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What planet are you from?

Read my question from about two weeks ago which provides plenty of evidence for the "save and created jobs"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...obama-has-not-helped-create-or-save-jobs.html

I would rather read what the CBO, who makes that estimate, says about it.

During the second quarter of calendar year 2011, according to recipients’ reports, ARRA funded more than 550,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs. Those reports, however, do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on U.S. employment, which could be higher or lower than the number of FTE jobs reported, for several reasons (in addition to any issues concerning the quality of the reports’ data).

We can't rely on the reports because they are inaccurate, and the real numbers could be higher, or lower. Interesting.

As for using historical data.

CBO used various economic models and historical data to guide its estimate of the way in which output and employment are affected by increases in outlays and reductions in revenues under ARRA. CBO’s assessment is that different elements of ARRA (such as particular types of tax cuts, transfer payments, and government purchases) have had different effects on economic output per dollar of higher spending or lower tax receipts. Multiplying estimates of those per-dollar effects by the dollar amounts of each element of ARRA yields an estimate of the law’s total impact on output. To produce estimates of ARRA’s total impact on employment, CBO combined that estimate with estimates of
how changes in output affect the unemployment rate and participation in the labor force

Interesting, doesn't actually say anything about accuracy, it does, however prove that the numbers are based on guesses, not actually counting jobs.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12385/08-24-ARRA.pdf

I agree that the green jobs inititiative isn't living up to expectations, but that doesn't change the fact that 100,000s of jobs have been created thus far. We will have to wait and see how much of a failure/success it will be.

That is amazing, hundreds of thousands of jobs. I am impressed at the breadth of your willingness to make numbers up. Did those jobs come from all the paperwork needed to complete the smallest green job?

'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus - Washington Times

Maybe they came from all the insulation jobs.

Obama's federal government can weatherize your home for only $57,362 <em>each</em> - latimes.com

That giving certainty to businesses is such conservative bogus. Corporate profits and productivity are at all time highs. Tax rates for the wealthy and corporations are at an all time low. I seriously doubt they can't afford to create jobs based upon "uncertainty".

Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil | Mother Jones

Tax Rates Down Dramatically for the Super Wealthy - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

Effective Tax Rates of the Richest 400 Americans

PolitiFact | Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

Here is the best source. Check out graphs 9,10, and 15 if not at all:

Wealth And Inequality In America

Do any of those articles talk to business owners?

And Obama has proposed deficit reduction. His biggest was back in September at 4 trillion. It, of course, was rejected.

Stimulus reduction? That really is a joke.

 

[Billy000]

What planet are you from?

Read my question from about two weeks ago which provides plenty of evidence for the "save and created jobs"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...obama-has-not-helped-create-or-save-jobs.html

I would rather read what the CBO, who makes that estimate, says about it.

During the second quarter of calendar year 2011, according to recipients’ reports, ARRA funded more than 550,000 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs. Those reports, however, do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on U.S. employment, which could be higher or lower than the number of FTE jobs reported, for several reasons (in addition to any issues concerning the quality of the reports’ data).

We can't rely on the reports because they are inaccurate, and the real numbers could be higher, or lower. Interesting.

As for using historical data.



Interesting, doesn't actually say anything about accuracy, it does, however prove that the numbers are based on guesses, not actually counting jobs.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/123xx/doc12385/08-24-ARRA.pdf



That is amazing, hundreds of thousands of jobs. I am impressed at the breadth of your willingness to make numbers up. Did those jobs come from all the paperwork needed to complete the smallest green job?

'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus - Washington Times

Maybe they came from all the insulation jobs.

Obama's federal government can weatherize your home for only $57,362 <em>each</em> - latimes.com

That giving certainty to businesses is such conservative bogus. Corporate profits and productivity are at all time highs. Tax rates for the wealthy and corporations are at an all time low. I seriously doubt they can't afford to create jobs based upon "uncertainty".

Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil | Mother Jones

Tax Rates Down Dramatically for the Super Wealthy - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

Effective Tax Rates of the Richest 400 Americans

PolitiFact | Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others

Here is the best source. Check out graphs 9,10, and 15 if not at all:

Wealth And Inequality In America

Do any of those articles talk to business owners?

And Obama has proposed deficit reduction. His biggest was back in September at 4 trillion. It, of course, was rejected.

Stimulus reduction? That really is a joke.

Nothing you said here gives me any reason to believe you have an informed opinion about American economics. I mean, come on, "did they talk to business owners?" Are you kidding me? So if the CBO is doing it wrong, then who is doing it right? What legitimate source is disputing the claims made in all of the articles I posted? Yeah, that's right. You can't come up with any.

The amount of time you spent on your last post was a complete waste, I hope you know.