Call it a documentary and it must be true
[QUOTE=Esten; 415950]Do you remember the part in that movie where they showed how Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the financial crisis?
I don't either. [/QUOTE]Unlike Michael Moore, Charles Ferguson is no doubt a brilliant guy. While he is a successful technologist and entrepreneur, however, I missed the part of his background that makes him an expert on micro and macro economics nor did I discover anything that would make him an expert on the effects of government regulation on the economy and human behavior. While I was busy not seeing things that would qualify him as an expert on all these subjects, I did come across some things that would make me question his objectivity, namely: he grew up in the Bay Area, graduated from Berkley in '78, got a PhD in Political science and worked for Clinton.
I am glad to know that the definitive analysis of the largest global economic calamity in generations has been performed by a biased, political operative with an agenda. Maybe Congress should just adopt the movie as the official version of what happened.
How hilarious. House Republican Leader John Boehner Wants to Raise Debt Ceiling.
You can't help but chuckle that the Congressman Republican Leader of the House now agrees with the Obama Administration:
"I think raising the debt limit is the responsible thing to do for our country, the responsible thing to do for our economy. If we were to fail the increase the debt limit, we would send our economy into a tailspin." (WSJ 3/4/11)
This is exactly what most of the Democrats and President Obama have been saying for months on end.
Welcome to the real world, Congressman Boehner.
Courtesy of the Tea Baggers
[QUOTE=Jackson; 415971]I've never seen Ron Paul or Sarah Palin [u]scream[/u] About anything.
Please provide a link or reference to these events.
Or just admit that your statement is typical liberal hyperbole.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Liberal hyperbole? I don't think so, READ:
[url]http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=263933[/url]
1 photos
Obama Economic Wizard or Fuzzy Math?
[QUOTE=Moveon;415970]The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still. All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus package not working or contributing to the nation's recovery. (including you, Wallyeye)[/QUOTE]Really, who's jerking who off?
[quote]9 Feb 2011.
Last week's surprisingly sharp decline in the unemployment rate from 9. 4% to 9% and equally surprising anemic job growth. 36, 000 new jobs. Left a lot of investors scratching their heads. How could the unemployment rate plummet so significantly while a such a trivial number of new jobs were created?
If we simply extrapolate those numbers, we get some nonsensical results. If adding 36, 000 jobs to the 139 million jobs in the USA economy lowers the unemployment rate by 0. 4 percentage points, then adding just 720, 000 jobs should lower the unemployment rate by 8 points. From 9% to only 1.
Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that 812, 000 jobs were added in the year from January 2010 to January 2011 (138, 511, 000 vs. 139, 323, 000). Based on the unemployment rate announced last week, we could expect that those 812, 000 additional jobs would have lowered the unemployment rate to near-zero. But of course, we know they didn't.
According to the BLS, the civilian labor force was 153. 8 million in January 2008 and 153. 2 million in January 2011. A decline of 600, 000 while the population increased by some 6 million. And the not-in-labor-force category expanded by 2 million from January 2010 to January 2011, from 83. 4 million to 85. 5 million.
When unemployed people stop looking for jobs at their local unemployment office, the government no longer counts them as unemployed. That's how the number of unemployed can drop from 15 million in November 2010 to 13. 8 million in January 2011, a decline of 1. 2 million, even though the economy created only about 400, 000 jobs in those three months.
Over a longer time period, the not-in-labor-force group rose from 78. 8 million in January 2008 to 85. 5 million in January 2011. An increase of almost 7 million.
[b][u]How do you drop the unemployment rate? Simple: remove 7 million people from the labor force. [/b][/u][/QUOTE]And for February the BLS reports.
[quote]Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. [/quote]Here's another link that speaks of ' manipulated job numbers'.
[url]http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/wall-street-ignores-job-number-exuberance-as-oil-hits-104-and-dollar-drops-hard[/url]
Now could you explain one more time how the Obama stimulus package is working and contributing to the nation's recovery?
Correcting the misinformation
The Successful Stimulus
No amount of lies and repetition can change the fact that Obama's Stimulus (supported by the USCoC) was absolutely successful as assessed by respected economists. Repubs keep repeating that it failed to keep unemployment below 8% as claimed in early 2009. That's all they got, but nobody could have foreseen the deep private sector job losses to come over 2009. The Administration erred in making an overly optimistic projection. However, the economic analyses show that the Stimulus created or saved near 3 million jobs. Without it, unemployment could have peaked over 11%, with no guarantee it would be trending down like it is now. Although the recent month-to-month unemployment trend is definately not directly attributable to the Stimulus, the idea that the Stimulus has not played any role in this trend is about as dubious as the idea that the trend is entirely due to post-midterm election private sector optimism.
Bush's Debt
The major components of our current deficit / debt situation are mostly due to Bush's legacy, not Obama. The Stimulus and other recent spending are large but temporary, and more importantly, are outsized by the ongoing impact of the Bush tax cuts, unfunded wars and economic downturn tax revenue loss resulting from conservative ideology under Bush.
I've posted this link a couple times before, and here it is once again, see Figure 1:
Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years
[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036[/url]
I can't take much more of this Esten!
[QUOTE=Esten;415979]The major components of our current deficit / debt situation are mostly due to Bush's legacy, not Obama.[/QUOTE]Democratic house and senate have set the budget since 2007. Obama showed up in 2009. It's now March 2011. It's all Bush's fault! WTF!
How dare you use the term "misinformation" Esten. I must admit that you liberals will never let the facts get in the way of a decent discussion. We need democrats in this country to provide a balanced agenda, HOWEVER, never give them the keys to the bus. It ends up going off the road everytime!
Tick! Tick! Tick! 2012 is just around the corner. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
The Double Standard of Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas
It has now been revealed that Judge Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose secret sources of income for 13 years on required federal forms according to a recent newspaper article published in the L. A. Times, 3/6/11. Included was $700,000 (between 2004-2007) that his wife earned from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank group). Throughout these years, Judge Thomas has been stating all along that his wife did not earn any income. In addition, his wife, Virginia Thomas, also received money from various groups that had importance and consequences in upcoming decisions that came before the Supreme Court itself.
Now if this Argentina, no one would pay notice or care. In fact, it's likely the norm. However, a Supreme Court Justice in the USA is obligated to recuse himself from any case 'in which his impartiality might be reasonable questioned. ' Apparently, this law mandates recusal when he knows that 'his spouse has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. '
Naturally, the financial forms are meant to forge a compete transparency and to assist the public and the Supreme Court in determining any conflicts of interest.
What was the response by Judge Clarence Thomas? He states that he 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. ' Come on, now. You have a distinguished record and a very smart person. Do you really think we buy that? What part of the English language on the instructions was so difficult to understand or interpret?
Yet, last year, Judge Clarence Thomas rejected a defense in a case brought before the Supreme Court (Jerman vs Carlisle) that the violations were due to misunderstanding of the federal law and were just 'bona fide errors. ' In other words, ignorance and misunderstanding of the law or instructions will 'not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally. '
So where does this leave you Judge Clarence Thomas?
Mr. Stasiak is correct (again)
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 416024]Hardly surprising that this guy would continue to distort things.
What do liberals think of whether Thomas and Scalia have had conflicts of interest? Even [i]they[/i] Agree that this is pure distortion politics from liberal smear groups. Here's what the New York Times printed, from the liberal former clerk to liberal Justice Souter:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13feldman.html[/url]
Funny thing is, after this noted liberal law clerk called out these notorious lefty groups for mounting a weak, smear campaign, what did they do? They attacked him.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/l20scotus.html[/url]
This is just par for the course for the left. When the Supreme Court properly ruled that Bush won, they claim he stole the election. [/quote]You know as well as anyone when you try to nail down these greased pigs, they'll flee the squared circle (see Wisc. And numerous other locales).
Now for the insightful heart punch:
[quote=]Now, they're trying to pre-empt the process. They know ObamaCare is likely to be stricken down when challenged, so they're trying to get a head start on attacking the legitimacy of the decision to bring it down. It's just like the Dem legislators going on the run in Indiana and Wisconsin. If they can't win by playing by the rules, they claim that the game wasn't fair, and they refuse to play. Tsk, Tsk.[/QUOTE]Anything you hear about any of the supreme jurists, who are true to the constitution, is an attempt by the left to soften up the beachhead for the case of Obamacare. There is only one reason why Obama doesn't want the case to go to the supremes, its unconstitutional. Other than that, the law is fine. Therefore, the left will try to discredit those on the bench that are partial to the rule of law and its root, the constitution.
Since they can't win on the merits of the law, they have to steal a victory by reducing the justices to a smaller number that includes a majority of liberal activists. There is an excellent, nonpartisan argument that Kagan should recuse herself from presiding over adjudication on the subject of Obamacare (Moreon and Esten, that means she shouldn't sit in judgment 'cause she's likely tainted (sorry, again biased). That said, I doubt that she will or that her left-wing benefactors (including the guy that put her in her current job, for which she is woefully unqualified) will allow her to recuse. They will take any and all shots, no matter how poorly conceived or structured to try to cast doubt upon sitting US Supreme Court justices.
Gee, that sounds like a group that is out for the best interests of the country. I can't believe I didn't get behind them sooner.
Don't ya just hate the facts dude!
[QUOTE=Esten; 416028]Dems held Congress since 2007.
Wait a sec. Oh crap, you got me. You win! Your in-depth analysis has defeated me! LOL[/QUOTE]Come on Esten, you got to do better than this? You started this conversation with you're statement that Bush was responsible for the deficit. Right! Both the democratic house and senate have set and passed the budget (until recently) since 2007. As WW points out, the exacerbation of these events have escalated dramatically under Obominations watch. Please elaborate how it's all W's fault. Inquiring minds want to know. Yes dude, sometimes the fastest way to get from point A to point B is a straight line. The dem's have been setting the country's operating deficit since 2007. Don't ya just hate the facts buddy? Tick! Tick! Tick! Regime change is just around the corner. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Clarence thomas or charlie sheen
Take your pick, America.
Poster boys for fat wallets and gigantic egos.
I'm guessing that I am one of the few folks on the board
That has had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of Justice Thomas. From my limited interaction with him, I found nothing that would contradict the fact that he is a good and honorable man.
Esten, Moreon and the left hate Justice Thomas because he is black and a conservative. If either of you has anything substantive to share about him, please do, but spare us a continuation of the racially motivated attacks of the left.
He's black, conservative, appointed for life and married a white girl, get over it.
