Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
52 days ago.
by amos57usa
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

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 223 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 223 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 223 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 223 days ago.

Freeman

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

Posted 223 days ago.

Freeman

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

Posted 223 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 223 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 223 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 224 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 226 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 226 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 229 days ago.

Freeman

Great speech in Tennessee Mr. President.

Free 2 year community college nation wide. I'm behind that.

Posted 230 days ago.

Freeman

I'll refer you to a chart.

data bls gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

I'm guessing you won't admonish me for using government numbers will you, they didn't come from MSNBC so I just want to check.

Posted 230 days ago.

Freeman

I mean, come on. The labor force has shrunk again. Of course the raw unemployment number is going to fall, buy you HAVE to analyze it with a modicum of intelligence.

The trend is good but hardly anything to start celebrating.... Yet.

Jan. 2008 employment payrolls were at 138.4 million. November 2014 they were at 140 million. 6 years into the recovery and we have just reached that number. Adjusted for growth and we have net losses in the employment numbers. So we are left with a -4% in real unemployment numbers, more specifically close to 10% real unemployment rates.

Posted 230 days ago.

Freeman

Job numbers in their raw format look pretty good. The issues I see with them are the continuing stagnation of wages, the drop in the labor force participation rate and the hit and miss rates in GDP growth.

Wages and the participation rate are tied together because the labor market is not tightening, employers do not have to compete for the highest quality workers. That is a sign of a weak economy.

"..The share of Americans in the workforce fell back to a three-decade low of 62.7%, down from November’s 62.9%. The labor force shrank by 273,000 workers last month. The number of unemployed workers fell by 383,000, while the number of workers with jobs rose by 111,000. The participation rate stood at 66% just before the recession..." WSJ

Posted 230 days ago.

Freeman

I guess that my data sets would have to reflect a favorable aspect in order for jaxspp to take them seriously. I can do that, I could sing the praises of the administration and congress, (both parties), plan on a booming economy and do all sorts of things that in my personal life because I had confidence in the future of our economic prosperity.

That, my friend, would be stupid and I'll tell you why.

Posted 230 days ago.

Freeman

By the way, jaxspp, I have a bridge in the Arabian Desert to sell you, it's a good deal, just ask any Administration official.

Posted 230 days ago.

Freeman

It got passed by a historically PARTISAN vote. It did not meet constitutional muster on the 10th amendment argument. IT LOST!!!!

The administration had to argue that they had the authority UNDER THE TAXING POWER....("IT IS NOT A TAX!!" remember????).

Good grief, you are absolutely unbelievable.

Posted 230 days ago.

Freeman

I think you might want to read the piece I cited jaxspp. It's actually somewhat complimentary of the President.

I just cannot believe how you dismiss information just because it is reported by a conservative source. Talk about shooting the messenger. It's not intellectually honest. If you have an issue with the data, explain it.

The ACA was supposed to "fix" the problem of 30+ million uninsured. They've not achieved that goal. The costs are through the roof and the quality and accessibility of care are falling for those on the newly expanded Medicaid rolls; (who, by the way, make up most of the 10 million).

Posted 230 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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