DC Tom Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 http://www.forbes.co...-and-investing/ You'd think with his incredibly poor polling numbers, he'd have done significantly worse. Thoughts? Are Forbes and the BLS to be trusted? That's not Forbes, that's a blog hosted by Forbes that clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own" and "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." Is there any particular reason I should trust anything posted by a Leonardo DiCaprio looking mother!@#$er I've never heard of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 And just like that, someone posts a link to a source even more brain dead than Forbes. That article reads like a parody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I'm sure not happy with the economic growth in the past 5 1/2 years. But if you're happy with mediocrity, at best, that's your issue not mine. Oh, you are just being a whinny partisan. Everyone wishes it would rain prosperity but you were the one claiming this was a historically slow recovery. If you can challenge this source from the thread, have at it. But I won't be holding my breathe That's not Forbes, that's a blog hosted by Forbes that clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own" and "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." Is there any particular reason I should trust anything poed by a Leonardo DiCaprio looking mother!@#$er I've never heard of? Is there any particular reason you can't challenge some of the authors pretty straight forward conclusions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Is there any particular reason you can't challenge some of the authors pretty straight forward conclusions? Why do I need to beat on another idiot, when I've got you in my life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Why do I need to beat on another idiot, when I've got you in my life? You suck! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 You suck! :lol: I honestly only had time to skim it today, but even at a quick scan it looked suspiciously like "manipulating the presentation of the number to make your point." Then when I noticed the byline, it was enough for my purposes to point out to Dork that he's not even reading what he thinks he's reading. Beyond that...if it were an actual Forbes article I might, but I don't feel particularly compelled to deconstruct the random musings of some random schmuck on the internet, when I can deconstruct the non-random musings of non-random schmucks here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 Fun read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I wasted five minutes reading that thinly veiled propaganda piece. All I got out of it is that the author really likes Obama. Using his methods I could make a strong case that Fitz outperformed Jim Kelly. Interesting how they picked 6.1 as an arbitrary stopping point for unemployment. Had they used 7.1 Reagan got there far faster. Trying to explain away the diminished work force as aging baby boomers was a shameless attempt to exploit the assumed ignorance of the reader, as though that accounts for the massive and immediate downturn in employment. Worst of all was the way they treated recovery from the day Obama took office, completely ignoring the fact that he came in at the bottoming out of a recession. There was nowhere to go but up. If you're actually trying to do a meaningful analysis to understand how policy changes effected growth you would take into consideration the natural cyclical bounce that historically follows a recession. Instead they treat it as though it were the norm and all progress made since was the result of fiscal policy. Nanker's post is far more telling than anything that article had to offer, and he didn't drone on with multiple paragraphs of puffery and horse ****. Well, with 92,000,000 Americans giving up working or looking for work, of course things are swimming in prosperity for all. "Blurring the picture, a wave of Americans stopped looking for work, meaning they were no longer counted as unemployed. Their exodus cut the unemployment rate from 7 percent to 6.7 percent - its lowest point in more than five years." Economists differ over which single factor best explains the decline in labor force participation. But few dispute that the trend will likely persist. More than 1.3 million Americans lost these benefits when the program expired last month. An additional 800,000 will lose their checks in the weeks ahead. Economists say the likelihood of landing a job dims substantially after six months of unemployment. The economy remains 1.2 million jobs shy of the 8.7 million that disappeared after the recession struck. 'The bottom line: The economy is not creating positions for these people,' said Robert Shapiro, chairman of the economic advisory firm Sonecon. Here is a chart of changes in labor force participation in five-year increments: Labor Force Participation 1978 63.2 percent 1983 64 percent 1988 65.9 percent 1993 66.3 percent 1998 67.1 percent 2003 66.2 percent 2008 66 percent" It currently stands at 63.2 percent. Great Job creating jobs B. O. and your leftist allies. In the face! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Oh, you are just being a whinny partisan. Everyone wishes it would rain prosperity but you were the one claiming this was a historically slow recovery. If you can challenge this source from the thread, have at it. But I won't be holding my breathe Is there any particular reason you can't challenge some of the authors pretty straight forward conclusions? Funny how he never mentions GDP numbers. He conveniently left those out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I experienced the Reagan years and that is why I had no need to read the article. Obama has not done anything to improve the economy. Reagan did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I honestly only had time to skim it today, but even at a quick scan it looked suspiciously like "manipulating the presentation of the number to make your point." Then when I noticed the byline, it was enough for my purposes to point out to Dork that he's not even reading what he thinks he's reading. Beyond that...if it were an actual Forbes article I might, but I don't feel particularly compelled to deconstruct the random musings of some random schmuck on the internet, when I can deconstruct the non-random musings of non-random schmucks here. it wasn't worth more than a skim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 it wasn't worth more than a skim... Neither is listening to all the right wingers on this board that claim Obama's presidency is seeing a slower recovery compared to the historical recovery of other recessions. But if that's what they want to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Neither is listening to all the right wingers on this board that claim Obama's presidency is seeing a slower recovery compared to the historical recovery of other recessions. But if that's what they want to do... Well, has it been a slow recovery historically speaking or not? If so then aren't the naysayers correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Well, has it been a slow recovery historically speaking or not? If so then aren't the naysayers correct? I would argue the question is moot. Different recessions, different economies different political situations. How incredibly different is this economy from the 1980's economy of the cold war world? What was the cause of that 1980's recession? It wasn't housing, which is really tough to turn a corner on. Or are we to compare this recession to the one of the 1890's?? In any event, this article's stats, unless they are complete lies, seems to say no, Obama's economy recovered faster in unemployment terms. Heck, it was just four years after Reagan left us that Clinton was running on the bad economy. So how great was the Reagan Revolution? *As a front note--not side--President's get the blame and credit that they don't always deserve on the economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I would argue the question is moot. Different recessions, different economies different political situations. How incredibly different is this economy from the 1980's economy of the cold war world? What was the cause of that 1980's recession? It wasn't housing, which is really tough to turn a corner on. Or are we to compare this recession to the one of the 1890's?? In any event, this article's stats, unless they are complete lies, seems to say no, Obama's economy recovered faster in unemployment terms. Heck, it was just four years after Reagan left us that Clinton was running on the bad economy. So how great was the Reagan Revolution? *As a front note--not side--President's get the blame and credit that they don't always deserve on the economy A President can't usually do much to help the economy, but he can do a whole lot to !@#$ it up. And it's not a matter of those stats being lies, it's a matter of them being cherry picked and manipulated. As I said before, using that kind of analysis I could show that Fitz was more effective than Jim Kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 *As a front note--not side--President's get the blame and credit that they don't always deserve on the economy Then please explain why you're giving Obama credit for this "recovery"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I would argue the question is moot. Different recessions, different economies different political situations. How incredibly different is this economy from the 1980's economy of the cold war world? What was the cause of that 1980's recession? It wasn't housing, which is really tough to turn a corner on. Or are we to compare this recession to the one of the 1890's?? In any event, this article's stats, unless they are complete lies, seems to say no, Obama's economy recovered faster in unemployment terms. Heck, it was just four years after Reagan left us that Clinton was running on the bad economy. So how great was the Reagan Revolution? *As a front note--not side--President's get the blame and credit that they don't always deserve on the economy In other news: Bush was the country's best president, because you can't compare presidencies across historical eras. Likewise, the occupation of Iraq was a wild success. You can't say otherwise, because you can't compare it to other wars: different economies, different political and military situations... You really are a !@#$ing retard, if you think you're making sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Then please explain why you're giving Obama credit for this "recovery"? Actually I was only answering YOUR argument and all the other right wing nuts around screaming that this recovery is "historically" slow. I'm not giving anyone credit, Reagan, Obama, Clinton or Tom Thumb. Economies and big things and Presidents can only do so much, especially when the opposition is opposed to everything In other news: Bush was the country's best president, because you can't compare presidencies across historical eras. Likewise, the occupation of Iraq was a wild success. You can't say otherwise, because you can't compare it to other wars: different economies, different political and military situations... You really are a !@#$ing retard, if you think you're making sense. Fine. Then prove this is a "historically slow recovery" you complete light weight. I'd love it if you actually tried instead of just calling names. Ha! And your point about Iraq comes too late, shouldn't have been comparing the occupations of Germany and Japan to how Iraq would go, like many right wingers did. Probably including you. Too bad you can't compare stupid, because you would compare unfavorably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Actually I was only answering YOUR argument and all the other right wing nuts around screaming that this recovery is "historically" slow. I'm not giving anyone credit, Reagan, Obama, Clinton or Tom Thumb. Economies and big things and Presidents can only do so much, especially when the opposition is opposed to everything If you were only answering my argument regarding the slowness of this recovery then why did you say this regarding the linked article in the OP? Is there any particular reason you can't challenge some of the authors pretty straight forward conclusions? What are the conclusions that the author draws that you want us to challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Fine. Then prove this is a "historically slow recovery" you complete light weight. I'd love it if you actually tried instead of just calling names. I can't. You can't compare current events to history. Now admit Bush wasn't a bad president. Ha! And your point about Iraq comes too late, shouldn't have been comparing the occupations of Germany and Japan to how Iraq would go, like many right wingers did. Probably including you. Actually I said it would go badly. I pretty pointedly said the WAR would be a cake-walk, but the peace would be a cast-iron B word. But you were still in diapers back then, so I'd hardly expect you to remember. And I never compared them to the post-WWII occupations...because you can't compare current events to history. You know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts