Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
5 hours ago.
by jaxspp
rshill7
#1

Letters To Ed :-)

"We've been duped by the Republicans. Kentucky Sen. and minority leader Mitch McConnell in a news conference one day after the election, stated that the single and sole goal of the GOP over the next two years is: to make Barack Obama a single term president. What an arrogant and obnoxious goal and statement. There agenda before the election was to get votes by promising that there first goals were jobs, the economy and health care reform. It seems their goal is to grab power, not to do things for the people that are in need of jobs and or unemployment pay, health care for those that don't have it, and the people losing their homes. This is the same party that wanted the auto plants and their suppliers to go out of business. We are just coming back from what they did to this country, and now we have them back to do the same things to our country again. What a mess the next two years is going to bring to this country. Talk about partisanship." Carl D. Leow Rogers Cit

 
 

Member Comments

Mitten has laundered his magic underwear and according to various sources, Jeb Bush has disavowed any knowledge of his brother. This is going be great.

Posted 5 hours ago.

The GOP clown car has started its engine. Paul, Cruz and Rubio have gone to kiss the Koch Brother's rears, Jindal went overseas and made such a fool of himself about no-go zones even Fox apologized. By the way, the White House stopped calling them Fox News, they just call them Fox. Fat Christie is forming a PAC, and even Palin (please, please) is giving hints. This is going to be the funniest campaign ever.

Posted 5 hours ago.

Obviously I don't watch MSNBC and I don't think I've ever used them as a reference. And Bush's numbers are bad by any standard and any measurement. As you have stated many many times, the economy needs to create 200000 jobs a month just to keep up with people entering it. To say "employment is full, we don't need to create more jobs" is contradicting the point you make every time I post Obama's numbers.

Posted 5 hours ago.

I said new spending Free, not just spending. I have no idea why you would change my wording. Actually I do have an idea.

Posted 5 hours ago.

normanlake

Netanyahooo!

Posted 3 days ago.

Freeman

On the face of it, one would say Jimmy made more money, right.

Let's look deeper a little deeper. Johnny invested $100, Jimmy invested $10.

That changes things doesn't it? Jimmy's rate of return is higher but he only made $8.00 while Johnny made $60.00.

Let's move little further. The economy under G.W. Bush created like 1.2 million jobs in an economy that was operating at near full employment, (participation rates). So his numbers, on their face look bad, OUT OF CONTEXT.

The current economy has crated nearly 11 million jobs but the actual rate of employment has dropped consistently over his term(s). It's all about context.

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

Here's what I'm talking about:

Johnny made 60% on his investment.

Jimmy made 80% on his investment.

Who made more money?

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

"..Raw numbers, lacking context and not adjusted for inflation or the size of the economy, are inherently misleading. While there are ways to look at the increase in debt over time that might bolster Priebus’s point, that is not how he chose to defend it. Instead, he was relying on raw dollar figures, which really do not tell you much. And just because Obama used this method in a campaign setting, that’s not an excuse for Republicans to use it, too..."

Washington Post

Good for the goose, good for the gander?

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

I am not trying to be recalcitrant, I'm trying to encourage you, and others, to examine things more deeply.

If you do nothing but listen to FOX on the right and MSNBC on the left, you are in big trouble. There are many conservative and liberals who trend toward the middle in their analysis and should really be listened to.

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

"...One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term. Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014, and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.).."

Calling someone fact free because you don't understand the facts is kind of childish jaxspp.

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

Ratio of debt to GDP -

"But measuring percentage changes in the debt/GDP ratio over time can be misleading because the GDP number is affected by the state of the economy, especially if the president suffers through a recession at the start of their term. Most recent presidents experienced robust annual GDP growth rates, compared with the flat line of Obama’s first years, which means the numerator in their calculation of GDP percentage grew much faster than the one used for Obama..."

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

“The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents. Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

Sen. Barack Obama, 2008

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

Almost 3/4 of a trillion dollars is still too large a budget deficit no matter who's in charge.

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

amos, I don't even know what you are talking about??? You off your meds?

Posted 10 days ago.

Freeman

useconomy about com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/National-Debt-Under-Obama.htm

Come on jaxspp. "Very little spending"?

Reference the above article, very fair analysis of what President's are and are not responsible for.

FY 2010 $1.293 trillion, FY 2011 $1.299 trillion, FY 2012 $1.327 trillion, FY 2013 (SEQUESTER) $901 billion, FY 2014 $744 billion.

These numbers do not reflect "very little spending", rather a full on double down of the kind of spending he, (AND YOU), hammer his predecessor for. Now, I've given him credit for the idea of sequestration, (that you completely denied was his idea), and the deficit is projected to be $700+ billion. THAT'S A GOOD THING. You need to know the "facts" before you render judgement young man.

Posted 10 days ago.

amos57usa

freem..I assumed you wouldn't tell us what other types of honesty there are besides "intellectual" and as always I was right. Economy means nothing to me. Are you going to force me to drool in my lap while filling my diaper in a nursing home or can we have assisted suicide like Oregon.

Posted 10 days ago.

There goes Fact-free again. For the 100th(?) time - Obama has done very little new spending. Obama did not run up the deficit. Repeating that he did over and over does not make it so. And since you try to be keen on numbers, look up Obama's debt as a percent of GDP. And yes, I do dismiss everything the Koch Brother's back Heritage Foundation puts out, their data is notorious for being deceptive, omissive, and outright lies.

Posted 11 days ago.

Freeman

The President is keen on saying that we have the largest job growth rate in decades.

Considering the hole we started in the actual growth is abysmal but he can't say that. I wouldn't expect him to.

The President is keen on saying the the deficit has dropped by 2/3. OK, but he ran it up to an obscene level first. So it's now 2/3 of an obscene level which makes it a nightmare instead of calamity. I'll give him "credit" for coming up with the sequestration idea, it actually is working.

My point is simple. The U.S. economy is SLOGGING toward a "recovery" despite the road blocks that the President and Congress have placed in front of it, not because of anything they have done to help.

Posted 13 days ago.

Freeman

You make a lot of assumptions amos57usa. Trickle down is not my idea of economic organics.

You should know what you're talking about before you "putz it up".

The current economic numbers, ON THEIR FACE, look good until you examine all of the underlying factors that support those numbers.

You cannot take them at face value because the economy is still in stimulus mode with the FED printing TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars per month.

We have a smaller percentage of A SMALLER WORKFORCE out of work. That's a start but think of it this way. Would you want 5% of $10.00 or 5% of $50.00? It's just that simple.

Posted 13 days ago.

amos57usa

freem...You accused jax of not being "intellectually honest" What other types of honesty or dishonesty are there? We have seen your book cooking way too many times. We have lived trickle down and don't like it.

Posted 16 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or