Pelosi Pounds President On Jobs
by Big Dog on Feb 5, 2010 at 23:57 Political
Pelosi is hopping mad about the jobs numbers. This is from Nancy Pelosi’s Congressional website:
Washington, D.C. — House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ announcement that 470,000 people abandoned their job searches in July and that 3.2 million private sector jobs have been lost since President Bush took office:
“The fact is that President Bush’s misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since President Bush took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover. And today we learned that in July nearly half a million people gave up looking for a job.
“Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families. While Democrats are fighting for opportunity, jobs, and economic security for working families, Republicans continue to focus on helping those who need help the least.
“According to today’s survey, while the national unemployment rate dropped slightly, it still stands at a near record high. In addition, the unemployment rate for African Americans was still over 11 percent in July, and the unemployment rate for Hispanics was 8.2 percent in July.
Pelosi is really taking the White House to task on these job numbers and the Republicans who are not stepping up to the plate. Who would have thought Pelosi would be so harsh?
Well, I would have because this is from August 2003 and it ends like this:
“It is time for President Bush and the Republicans to get to work for all Americans, not just the elite few.”
The numbers back then were better than they are now but I am willing to bet that Pelosi will not be out bashing Obama around and speaking this kind of smack.
No, she is a partisan hypocrite and will say anything. She is no different than Obama who is now doing the same things that he attacked George Bush for, you know, things like running deficits.
Nancy Pelosi is a jackass hypocrite who is actively pushing a radical agenda in support of the radical in the White House.
It is time to rid our country of these people.
Vote them out.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: hypocrite, jobs numbers, Obama, Pelosi
Oh, but this really needs the accompanying chart:
See it here.
Down is bad, up is good. Amazing.
Kind of looks like the GDP chart. You’ll have to pencil in the latest quarter yourself 5.7% GDP?.
Down is Bush, up is Obama.
“She is no different than Obama who is now doing the same things that he attacked George Bush for, you know, things like running deficits.”
Bush’s deficits were the fault of two wars, tax cuts and a downturn. Obama’s deficits are the fault of Bush’s wars, Bush’s tax cuts, and Bush’s downturn. If you know a way for Obama to not run a deficit then just let us all know.
DAR
Down is bad, up is good. Amazing.
No its not. Your chart shows jobs lost not jobs. If it was jobs you’d be right. Job lost has to slow down. Obama’s jobs lost are on top of Bush’s. Cumulative, more total jobs lost. Just think of it this way when all jobs are lost there will be no jobs to lose and chart will show zero. Your chart needs to show jobs gained before up is good. And the period where Bush had lost jobs Dems had control of Congress.
You seem to be suggesting that job loss slowing is not a good thing but simply a sign we are running out of jobs to lose. This is the argument Blake makes every time I mention the drop in jobs lost per month.
The reality is that we have 9.7% unemployment. This is very, very far from where we’d need to be for us to simply run out of jobs to lose. It’s nice of you to try and spin this chart as not good news for the Obama but you’ll need to do better.
DAR said:
Down is bad, up is good. Amazing.>>
MIKE: No its not.>>
DAR
Yes it is.
MIKE: Your chart shows jobs lost not jobs.>>
DAR
Right, and when the trend line of the “jobs lost” graph goes down, increases (as it does under Bush), this is bad. When the trend line of the “jobs lost” graph goes up, decreases (as it does under Obama), this is good. More lost jobs each month is bad, less lost jobs each month is good. As you say, no lost jobs is even better but you don’t turn the titanic around on a dime.
MIKE: Obama’s jobs lost are on top of Bush’s. c**ulative, more total jobs lost.>>
DAR
True. So it’s even more important that he stop and then turn around the terrible “jobs lost” *trend* started under Bush.
Which he did, pretty much on day one (see the chart).
D.
————-
“South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford also explained to [Barbara] Walters that her husband was frugal, even “cheap.” ABC:
“He drew me a picture of a half a bike, and then for the next birthday or Christmas I got the picture of the other half a bike, and then he delivered the $25 used bike,” she recalled.
For another birthday, Mark Sanford gave her a diamond necklace, which she adored, but then he took it back.”
Jenny Sanford: ‘Cheap’ Mark Sanford Dropped ‘Faithful’ From Wedding Vows
First I never said running out of jobs to lose, but the base is lowered. DAR and Adam, you guys need to take a course in stats or math. Losing more jobs is not a positive trend no matter how you spin it. The fact is things are getting worse just not as quickly.
Let me just quote to you from the Bureau of Labor Statistics December Employment Situation News Release:
I’m in agreement with them in saying 69,000 is worse than 691,000. You want the BLS to take a stats or math course as well? Or maybe you can tell us how things are getting worse.
You, not the BLS needs a class. The BLS stated losses moderated substantially. That is true. But the total jobs decreased. AND their figures reflect that as well. It’s getting worse just not getting worse as fast. Simple concept really. It is still worse.
“It’s getting worse just not getting worse as fast. Simple concept really.”
Simple? Really?
So anywhere between 691,000 and 0 is worse to you? It has to consistently be above 0 to be getting better?
Speaking from a statistical standpoint, let’s take crime as an example. If fewer people are murdered in a city but the number is still not zero, is crime still getting worse just more slowly? No, you wouldn’t.
Imagine drawing a trend line on job losses from January 2009 onward. Which way is that trend line going? It’s going up toward positive job growth just like we saw in November. Things are getting better. To argue otherwise is absurd, to say the least.
Or let’s say it’s been 20 below zero and the temperature rises to 5 below zero. Is it still getting cold, just much slower?
Adam
Or let’s say it’s been 20 below zero and the temperature rises to 5 below zero. Is it still getting cold, just much slower?
No, to compare it to the job loss stats it went from zero to 20 below and then 25 below. And you are trying to tell me 25 below is better than 20 below because it only dropped 5 degrees not 20.
Your example strays from reality. Let’s just keep it real, real simple. Load up the chart and put a pencil or pen on your monitor with the back end at January 2009 and the pointy end at January 2010 and tell me which way the pen or pencil is pointing. Is it pointing up or is it pointing down? Are job losses growing or shrinking on average month to month?
I can’t believe you don’t get it, Adam. My temperature example was spot on. The change in jobs correspond to the change in temperature. In my example the temperature was still going down just not as much. The number of jobs is still going down just not as much. Don’t you get it. There are FEWER jobs, period.
If Adam was buried up to his neck in crap he would think it was good if he was being buried slower instead of dug out.
And you took what math and stats classes in college?
Adam
Are job losses growing or shrinking on average month to month?
The ADDITIONAL job losses are shrinking. The TOTAL job losses are increasing.
MIKE: “My temperature example was spot on.”>>
DAR
Okay, let’s go with your silly temperature example. I say silly because, why do we need an “example?” Are we to believe that you can’t understand a job situation improving when less jobs are lost than the month before? Really?
Mike’s temp example: “Or let’s say it’s been 20 below zero and the temperature rises to 5 below zero. Is it still getting cold, just much slower?”
DAR
No, it’s getting WARMER. Considerably warmer. And that’s a *good* thing. Just as one would say it is a good thing when job losses go from -80k in January 2009 to -5k in January 2010 (as they have). On that chart, up is good, down is bad, as I said, and you know it.
D.
————-
“In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents–five Democrats and five Republicans–and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]…. the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252, which just happens to be almost the exact odds of being dealt a straight in a game of five-card stud.”
–James Carville, We’re Right, They’re Wrong, pg. 13 (1996)
“I can’t believe you don’t get it, Adam.”
Did you get your pencil? You didn’t did you? Here, let me help you out.
“And you took what math and stats classes in college?”
I took quite a few math and stats classes actually but I doubt you care. But even folks with a GED know you’re in the wrong on this one.
“If Adam was buried up to his neck in crap he would think it was good if he was being buried slower instead of dug out.”
Even that example is flawed. If 6 months ago you were shoveling 10 pounds of mud an hour and I was removing 1 pound I’d be at -9. Today you’re shoveling 5 pounds of mud an hour and I’m removing 4 pounds of mud I’d be at -1. Yes, you can say that I’m getting buried still only slower. Or you can say it like a normal person would without the spin and just admit that my situation is improving and any day now I’ll be shoveling more out than you’re shoveling in.
Straight A’s in math through differential equations and stats that required calculus. Now let me help you our with your chart. Each successive period shows the change not total. Each period but one in your graph displays FEWER total jobs.
If one period had 10 jobs, then 4 jobs were lost so that there were 6 total jobs, then 3 jobs lost so that there were 3 total jobs, then 2 jobs lost there was 1 total job, then 1 job lost everyone is out of work. Your example is a trend not an absolute. Look no jobs, but we didn’t lose any more jobs.
You don’t need college math to prove what you’re saying. The point is if I’m adding 691,000 lost jobs to the total jobs lost in the 3rd quarter and in the 4th quarter I’m only adding 69,000 jobs lost to the total jobs lost then are you still going to say that I’m not moving in the direction I want to go just because I’m not yet adding more jobs than I lost?
Adam
You don’t need college math to prove what you’re saying. The point is if I’m adding 691,000 lost jobs to the total jobs lost in the 3rd quarter and in the 4th quarter I’m only adding 69,000 jobs lost to the total jobs lost then are you still going to say that I’m not moving in the direction I want
I never disputed that, but you make it sound as if jobs are being added which they are not. By necessity the rate of job loss must slow. That said, I think it is too early to fairly evaluate Obama’s economic policy, but I am not impressed to date. Too much debt. If interest rates go up all hell breaks loose.
DAR, can you read? The example you cited was Adam’s not mine. So you agree with me his example was wrong.
Neither of you seem to grasp the difference between additional job losses and total job losses. Total job losses must slow for eventually everyone is out of work and there will be no additional jobs to lose.
“Total job losses must slow for eventually everyone is out of work and there will be no additional jobs to lose.”
This is exactly what I suggested you were arguing earlier when I said:
You replied:
It’s simply not the case though. You don’t run out of jobs to lose when unemployment is 10%. Net job losses have declined because each month the number of losses has slowed and the number of jobs created has increased. They’re meeting in the middle right now but in the next few months we’ll probably start averaging positive job growth.
When that happens we’ll most likely see a sharp rise in unemployment as number of marginally attached (discouraged workers specifically) decreases. This will be followed by a real drop eventually of course instead of just an adjustment.
DAR
They’re meeting in the middle right now…
No, they are not. Friday the Dept of Labor reported nonfarm payrolls decreased by 20,000 in January. See chart:
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20100205.htm?A
DAR
It’s simply not the case though. You don’t run out of jobs to lose when unemployment is 10%.
No, but it’s a very low number before it is catastrophic. Unemployment during the Great Depression peaked around 22%. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif
My bad, I meant Adam not Dar.
I define middle as the zero point where we lose as many jobs as we add and have zero change in nonfarm payrolls.
Now, if you look at Table B-1 of the latest BLS Economic News Release you can see what I’m talking about.
Some sectors are adding tons of jobs. Others, not so much. The three main sections come out like this:
* Goods-producing: -60,000
* Private service-providing: 48,000
* Government: -8,000
That gives you the -20,000 nonfarm which is pretty close to zero. The number of jobs created and the jobs lost are meeting in the middle, are they not?
The numbers have been largely unchanged over the last 3 months since it was way high in November and way low in December and then only -20,000 in January. Construction right now is the biggest sector that is bringing down the count at -75,000 in January.
I agree with Darrel’s statement below. I’m not pretending -20,000 is good but just that -20,000 of January 2010 is good compared to -598,000 of January 2009. These numbers will get better in the next few months though it will be an uphill climb of several years to replace most of the jobs lost in the last 2 years.
You hint at this again with the statement:
I just don’t believe that is true. We could hit 20% unemployment. We could drop more and more jobs. We aren’t even close to the bottom of jobs we could lose if we’re at 10% unemployment. When you see a net decline in job losses it has very little to do with there being fewer jobs to lose and almost everything to do with there being more and more jobs being created in each sector.
For instance manufacturing, motor vehicles and parts, temporary help services, retail trade, health care, and the federal government added 176,000 jobs, far more than lost. Yet, construction, transportation, warehousing had a decrease big enough to offset that 176,000 and there was a net decrease of 20,000 jobs. The jobs are being created though and things are getting better.
Let’s start at the top:
DAR said:
“Down is bad, up is good. Amazing.”
Mike responded: “No its not.”>>
DAR
All of this confusion above is based upon an equivocation.
Of course anything below the waterline on that graph is in one sense “not good.” One could also argue that anything below a net plus of 150k jobs per month is (in another sense) “not good” since that is about the number needed to break even and make up for population growth.
A “good” is always a subjective claim made relative to something else. Always. When I said, with regard to this chart, that up was good and down was bad, I was clearly making a comparison between the months referenced on the chart. On this chart, when comparing months, down is bad, up is good, no exceptions.
Key point: The “up” is only good when compared to, in relation to, the down.
If you disagree with this then you are equivocating and referring to a “good” in some other sense. That’s fine but it doesn’t have anything to do with my claim.
Also, when quoting someone it would sure lessen confusion if quotation marks and/or name TAGS were used. Just takes a second.
D.
Adam has taken his cue from the Dems and blamed it all on Bush. If Obama is dealing with the same thing he should be running the same debt. He is not because he spends too much.
You have been shown and told how he could do it but you refuse to see because you are wedded to this plan for recovery.
Bigd: “if Obama is dealing with the same thing he should be running the same debt. He is not because he spends too much.”
DAR
Obama’s spending accounts for about 10% of the change in deficit. Bush’s legacy spending accounts for about 90% of the deficit. All carefully explained in this short article by Gene Lyons:
The Deficit Blame Game.
Excerpt:
“Two weeks before Obama was inaugurated, the Congressional Budget Office projected the 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion, adding that due to the economic crisis the new administration also inherited, “collections from corporate income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic conditions, they would both grow.” Mandated spending on unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc., increased.
A year later, little had changed. A December 2009 analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that the Bush administration’s fiscal legacy “explain(s) virtually the entire deficit over the next 10 years.”
Economic stimulus and all, new spending by the Obama administration amounts to roughly 10 percent of this year’s deficit.”
The jobs loss numbers are all relative. The number this month is 9.7% unemployment and we lost 20,000 more jobs. The only way that can happen is if one of the numbers has changed. Well, 100,000 people have stopped looking all together so the math is fuzzy at best and does not give an accurate picture of what is really going on.
This is not new for this administration. What is new is how the left views the numbers. Obama good Bush Bad even if the numbers are the same (Bush had a lower unemployment rate).
Once again Darrel gives us the Carville quote that is nonsense. He quotes the guy who said Democrats would be in control for the next 40 years.
He will be off by about 38…
Bigd: “Darrel gives us the Carville quote that is nonsense.”>>
DAR
If there is anything in that Carville quote that is not exactly 100% true, I would be most pleased to see you point it out. You don’t do this because you cannot.
The job creation record of presidents is not an opinion but rather and objective measurable statement of fact. You can say it doesn’t matter that Demo’s hold the top five slots (of ten), you can say it is a fluke (Carville provided the odds) but you can’t say it isn’t true and then be taken seriously if just run away from backing up your claim.
I’ll even look it up for you. See the data here.
D.
The rate of job loss has slowed because most companies have pared down to the smallest number they need to keep afloat.
If some of them lose more jobs they will go belly up.
We would have seen this trend no matter who was in office and no matter whether stimulus was spent or not.
Businesses are at bare bones. The ones who made it for a while are now slashing like Wal Mart.
We know the numbers are manipulated. You can’t lose 20,000 jobs and have the unemployment rate go down unless you stop counting a large number of people.
Bigd: “We would have seen this trend no matter who was in office…”>>
DAR
I agree with you there. I think McCain would have taken pretty much the same actions.
Bigd: “You can’t lose 20,000 jobs and have the unemployment rate go down…”>>
DAR
How many total jobs would there be in the US? 150 million? 20k jobs is incidental in such a huge market. Margin of error.
Federal government added these jobs Adam or did the private sector?
If the feds added jobs it does nothing for tyhe economy.
I do not see these jobs being added in the private sector.
It is too bad that the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007. That is when they started running us into the ground…
If we stopped trying to manipulate things and exact social justice and financial equality or people who are not financially equal we could avoid these problems.
“We know the numbers are manipulated. You can’t lose 20,000 jobs and have the unemployment rate go down unless you stop counting a large number of people.”
The numbers are not manipulated. Stop lying. This is exactly the way they have calculated unemployment for a long time.
“It is too bad that the Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007. That is when they started running us into the ground…”
Name one thing the Democrats did from January 2007 on that has caused the situation we are in now.
“Federal government added these jobs Adam or did the private sector?”
Well, that depends. Are you going to argue the stimulus created no jobs? If so you have to admit that these jobs are private sector. If you think they aren’t private sector then you must admit the stimulus worked. The point of stimulus funded work was not to employ people long term. It’s to stimulate growth in the short term. Does a federal government created job pay money that spends differently than a private sector job?
“Adam has taken his cue from the Dems and blamed it all on Bush. If Obama is dealing with the same thing he should be running the same debt. He is not because he spends too much.”
I’m sorry, but the truth is the majority of the debt we’re in now as created by Bush’s two wars, the Bush tax cuts, and TARP which was proposed by Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and pushed to Congress by Bush.
The next big factor is the downturn which was not the direct fault of Bush but happened on his watch and happened before Obama had any control over anything related to the downturn.
The only significant part of the debt connected to Obama is the stimulus. Yet, if Obama never signed the stimulus then the deficit would be largely unaffected.
If Obama pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and then rolled back the Bush tax cuts it would significantly affect the deficit. You don’t want either of those things though, do you?
So remind us again what Obama can do right now that you would support to not run a deficit or at least get back to the $500 billion deficit from a few years ago.
ADM: “only significant part of the debt connected to Obama is the stimulus.”>>
DAR
Right. So Bush legacy problems gives about 90% of this deficit, Obama’s new actions about 10%. All explained in
this Salon article.
Only Darrel and Adam would say additional job loss is good. Wow! BTW, didn’t Obama say that unemployment would top out at 8% if the stimulus was passed? May Obama, Darrel, and Adam think that 10% unemployment is better than 8%.
“Only Darrel and Adam would say additional job loss is good.”
Back to that argument again? Did you sleep last night and forget everything we talked about? No, additional job losses are not great. Yet, are you still going to sit there and argue that losing 20,000 is January 2010 is just as bad as losing 598,000 in January 2009…because we’re still losing jobs? Get real. Stop being dishonest. The jobs situation is improving and you know it. It’s got a long way to go but to pretend it’s still getting worse simply because we’re not consistently adding more jobs than we’re losing is just an absolute lie.
“May Obama, Darrel, and Adam think that 10% unemployment is better than 8%.”
The statement about 8% was made in the Romer and Bernstein report from the first of January. By the end of February when Obama signed the stimulus package into law unemployment was already 8.3%. It was nearly 9% before any significant amount of money was spent. What you cite is a figure they admit in the report was subject to “considerable uncertainty” and indeed was inaccurate. Get over it. To keep quoting the 8% as if that proves anything just shows how dishonest or misinformed you are.
Yes, 20,000 jobs lost in January ON TOP of the jobs already lost is worse.
I can picture Adam owning a company and informing his employees of great news. We’re laying off a smaller number this period. Isn’t that fantastic?
I guess you’ve confirmed it. Indeed, 20,000 is as bad as 598,000 to you since it’s not zero or jobs added. You like to brag about the A’s you got in college but apparently you left there without any critical thinking skills. Too bad too. Arguing with you is like arguing with a block of tofu.
Adam resorts to name calling again when he can’t make his point. I bet if he goes to the gaming tables and loses a smaller amount than the time before he thinks he is money ahead.
I don’t agree with everything that BigDog posts and I try to see both sides. With Adam and Darrel there are no two sides. They disagree with everything no matter what the facts. It’s old and I’m close to not reading their comments anymore. Adam and Darrel, insert your putdown here.
I’m sorry if comparing you to a block of tofu makes you think I’m resorting to name calling.
Let me condense it down to just this:
My Fact: Losing only 20,000 in January 2010 is better than losing 598,000 in January 2009.
Your Fiction: Losing 20,000 in January 2010 is just as bad as losing 598,000 in January 2009 because it’s still jobs lost not gained.
You keep citing examples that don’t line up. A much better example is crime as I mentioned before. If 598,000 people were victims of crime in a city in January 2009 but in January 2010 only 20,000 people were, would you still say crime has not gotten better in the city because 20,000 people were still victims? Of course you wouldn’t and you know it. Stop being dishonest. You are absolutely wrong and everyone here with a brain knows it.
And for the record you replied to our comments, not the other way around. Feel free to not read my comments. I don’t care either way. Big Dog runs this joint and my primary conversation is with him. If you feel it’s a waste of time then by all means ignore me.
Romer and Bernstein are Obama economic advisors. More on them:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html
Look at you. You can’t even cite an honest source. The Time article you cite:
That article was published July 14, 2009. A “little over a month ago” would refer to about June 2009. The problem with that article? This is what Romer and Bernstein said:
Notice that they aren’t saying anything close to 3 to 4 million will have been created by March 2009 and June 2009. This is the kind of dishonesty you are relying on to make your arguments?
Again, in reality Romer and Bernstein’s report says their estimates involve “considerable uncertainty” and indeed by the time the stimulus was passed far more jobs had been lost than were predicted would have been lost without the stimulus. The failure has everything to do with underestimating the impact of the recession and nothing to do whatsoever with the stimulus package or Obama or his advisors.
MIKE: “Only Darrel and Adam would say additional job loss is good. Wow!”>>
DAR
No, this is a distortion as has been carefully explained to you.
The “good” is relative to other months which were less “good.” You can be obtuse on this and feign ignorance but I doubt it is fooling anyone.
No Adam if the stimulus created government jobs then it did not work. It is easy to create government jobs but they produce nothing because they are paid for with taxes.
No, the stimulus did not create jobs if there were jobs created in the private sector.
I would dispute the numbers in any event, too many games have been played with job numbers to give credibility to any of them.
I think when I indicated that we would be seeing this trend no matter who was in office would be an indication that the expression we know the numbers are manipulated would indicate that the government does this, not just the Dems or this administration but then again I have laid blame on both sides, Adam is too partisan to do that.
Mike and I do not agree on everything and that is good but we don’t call each other names because of the difference. We do agree that Adam and Darrel and counter everything. I once complimented Obama and was attacked for it by these two.
Again, if saying “arguing with you is like arguing with a block of tofu” counts as name calling then you’d need to indict everyone that comments here.
Tax cuts did not add to the deficit, spending did.
The two wars were authorized by Congress and military force is a Constitutional subject. If the Dems do not want the war then they can defund it. Obama sent more troops, he bolstered the money for the war, he took ownership and is just as responsible for the cost. If he did not want to be he could have just brought the troops home.
TARP, you mean that thing Barry supported and voted for?
The facts are that the doubling of the deficit that Obama has done has nothing to do with the wars or tax cuts. It has to do with his out of control spending.
“Tax cuts did not add to the deficit, spending did.”
Technically yes. When you consider the lost revenue (and let’s not pretend tax cuts add revenue) then you see the impact the tax cuts have on the budget.
“The facts are that the doubling of the deficit that Obama has done…”
Well, I have to stop right there because Obama hasn’t doubled the deficit. You cite sources to say he does but they’re wrong. Obama’s spending this year will add to deficits in the future but only a tiny sliver of the 2009 deficit had anything to do with Obama.
Keep saying it Adam but that does not make it true.
Tax cuts always increase revenue. It is easy to see b y looking at Treasury receipts. They go up when taxes are cut.
When you raise taxes people find ways to avoid them. For example, Maryland raised taxes (sales tax and changed the income tax) and the legislature said this would bring in more money (the same belief you have). The revenue has fallen.
Government blames it on the economy but the state has lost a number of millionaires who have moved out to avoid taxes. Also, people like me drive into Delaware or Virginia to make purchases because there are no taxes (or they are lower).
Smokers go to VA to get tobacco because it is cheaper. Big ticket items are cheaper in Delaware (which is why I get all my big stuff there).
Revenues drop. If the MD legislature had reduced taxes then the revenue would go up. They know this which is why they have a sales tax-free day or week before school starts. This encourages people to spend more and businesses make money and pay more in taxes. It always works (which is why Obama talks tax cuts).
“Tax cuts always increase revenue.”
This by far the biggest pile of horse crap that American conservatives subscribe to I think. It has never been proven and yet so many of you preach it like the gospel truth. I’m sorry to have to break this to you again but it’s a myth, a hoax, a fraud, and a lie.
“Tax cuts always increase revenue.”
DAR
Let’s nuke that one again (done in December and earlier). Citing Bush’s own people.
***
The idea that tax cuts always increase revenue is holy rightwing dogma but it is of course patently false. We recently covered this but lets do it again:
—
January 16, 2008
Question: “Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?
Answer: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.
This economic theory is what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” We called it “supply-side spin” when we wrote about Republican presidential contender John McCain’s claim that President George W. Bush’s tax cuts had increased federal revenues. We found that a slew of government economists – from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers – all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn’t been enacted.”
Factcheck
Note the date. The “White House’s Council of Economic Advisers” are GW Bush’s people.
More here:
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
You keep citing examples that don’t line up. A much better example is crime as I mentioned before. If 598,000 people were victims of crime in a city in January 2009 but in January 2010 only 20,000 people were, would you still say crime has not gotten better in the city because 20,000 people were still victims? Of course you wouldn’t and you know it. Stop being dishonest. You are absolutely wrong and everyone here with a brain knows it.
Well Adam, if 598,000 people were victims of crime (would be a liberal city run by Democrats) and then it dropped to 20,000 it might or might not be better. Did the population of the city drop? If it started with 1.2 million people and 598,000 were victims of crime (assuming no repeat victims) then about 50% of the population was victimized.
If a lot of people moved out (say like in Detroit, California, or MD) and now the population is 50,000 and 20,000 are victims then the crime rate is still at 40% which is a small improvement at best. It is all based on what total we start with.
If you lose 598k with near full employment and are now losing 20k with 15 million fewer people from which to draw down then the numbers will be deceptive. The pool to downsize from is much smaller now.
Not you too. You cannot see that the progress from negative to positive job growth is for the negative growth to decline to zero and then to go above zero eventually and that that is a good trend, not a bad trend? Get real, people. This is dead simple. You’re spinning and spinning to make a positive trend look bad and it’s ridiculous.
Boy, they really don’t like that chart do they? So they pretend to be too stupid to understand it.
Down is bad, up is good. Way up, is better.
So let me get this straight. The demonstrable increase in revenue when taxes are cut makes it a hoax.
On the other hand, the falsehoods and lies exposed in the IPCC and global warming community means it is not a hoax.
And you wonder why people do not take you seriously.
Bigd: “The demonstrable increase in revenue when taxes are cut makes it a hoax.”>>
DAR
Supply side garbage. You invested in this nonsense in the 80’s and now that it has been proven so wrong, over and over, you still can’t give it up. That’s very conservative. Always preserving the past, even when it’s wrong. Bush is the most recent example of this. His tax cuts are drastically reducing revenue, right now.
Bigd: “the falsehoods and lies exposed in the IPCC and global warming community”>>
DAR
Let’s see them. List them, one by one. Let’s see if you can make even one of your claims about this stick.
D.
How some people live without instructions telling them to breathe ina nd breathe out is beyond me.
The deficit for the next 10 years will be Bush’s fault. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now that is hilarious. Obama doubled the deficit. His spending is responsible for a major increase. This has been carefully demonstrated but you go with your spun numbers, it makes you feel good.
In a year or two you guys will stop blaming Bush. We might be blaming Obama for a long time though. When the interest rates go up and China calls in its markers we will be down the tube.
Bigd: “The deficit for the next 10 years will be Bush’s fault. HAHAHA”
DAR
A big chunk of it yes. Adam and Gene Lyons quote above already explained why. You republicans love your wars and your tax cuts, but you don’t like to pay for them.
No Darrel, it is bunk. First of all the government does not create jobs.
From your article:
The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated. On the one hand, they include only nonfarm payroll employment, which excludes certain types of jobs, notably the self-employed. However, as a semi-balancing factor, they count one person with two jobs as two employed persons.
Additionally, for at least the first eight months of a President’s term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery).
Moreover, according to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress is responsible for government spending and thus, regardless of Presidential advocacy, bears constitutional responsibility for such things as spending and tax policy that have enormous effects upon the economy. Furthermore, it is debatable how much effect any President realistically could have on a system as large, diverse, and complex as the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the nonfarm payrolls number is the one most frequently used in the media and by economists, largely because the alternative (household survey numbers) is thought to drastically overestimate employment.
Another factor to consider is population growth, which provides opportunities for the creation of jobs, rendering these figures less impressive, or in the case of the already subpar, clearly insufficient.
FDR had WWII. When you conscript millions of men and then hire women to take their place, you certainly get job growth.
These numbers are deceptive. How did Carter create jobs with such a miserable economy?
And often times government employee numbers increase to falsely inflate these numbers. It is easy to make claims like Carville did but the numbers used to make the claims are insignificant and subject to a lot of controversy.
No, as it says, “The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated.” The numbers are not in question. All you need to see is the data at that link to know that Carville’s claim is factual.
You don’t even seem to attempt to rebut this.
Bigd: “How did Carter create jobs with such a miserable economy?”>>
DAR
Again you lean on your personal bias and memory. You hate Carter. Got it. When one actually looks at his numbers, his record, factually, objectively, along side other presidents, his results are not bad at all.
Again, as I have pointed out before, among presidents since WWII, the Demo’s have the top three slots, the republicans have the bottom three slots. Carter is squarely in the middle beating your Nixon, Eisenhower and beating the pants off of both papa Bush and baby Bush *handily.*
Forbes.
D.
No Darrel, you use you FactCheck buddies to distort the truth. Just because you say something was roasted does not mean it is true. All you did was spew the same garbage that you spewed back then.
From 1997 (pre W):
In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s. Link
And the Heritage study that puts an end to all the lies:
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by “putting money in people’s pockets.”
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Link
You confuse mere assertion (from the boys at Heritage nontheless) for actually demonstrating something. I was aware you could assertions (and you’ve shared this list of mere assertions before).
The idea that “Tax cuts always increase revenue” is really almost too stupid for serious discussion. You need to get over this one.
Darrel, they have been listed. You just spew some garbage, claim you were right and move on.
No, INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING is the reason for you problems now. The tax cuts INCREASED revenue, as demonstrated from the Treasury’s own numbers as laid out by the sources cited.
The problem with you progressives is you think that your failed policies will work if smart people try them.
This assumes you have any smart people…
We love our wars? Nearly every conflict we have been involved in during the last 150 years was started by a Democrat.
If I am correct Congress had to vote on this and a lot of Democrats voted for it.
No, the next 10 years will not be the result of Bush spending, they will be the result of Congressional spending on social programs which account for much more than the defense budget.
Bigd: “the next 10 years will not be the result of Bush spending, they will be the result of Congressional spending on social programs”>>
DAR
Well, that’s mostly true, but doesn’t really have anything to do with Obama or Bush. That was already factored in and is a much bigger problem in the future (hence the need to fix them). The big deficits we face now are overwhelming because of Bush nonsense. Glorious off budget wars, medicare donut holes, HUGE tax cuts for the very top 5% and revenue destroyed because he drove the economy in the crapper.
All carefully explained above.
NO, any deficit we have in the future is the culmination of spending beyond our means by members of both parties.
Assertions by Heritage no less. What you always do when the source disagrees with meanwhile you take assertions from FactCheck, no less.
And what is wrong with FactCheck these days anyway?
ADM: “And what is wrong with FactCheck these days anyway?”>>
DAR
They are non-partisan and they back up their claims with references.
I can’t believe anyone is still defending this Supply side stuff. It’s like young earth creationism (which is like flat earth claims).
Big Dog
Mike and I do not agree on everything and that is good but we don’t call each other names because of the difference. We do agree that Adam and Darrel counter everything.
Mike
Yeah, Darrel even argued with Adam’s point when he thought it was mine. Shown next.
DAR
Mike’s temp example: “Or let’s say it’s been 20 below zero and the temperature rises to 5 below zero. Is it still getting cold, just much slower?”
No, it’s getting WARMER. Considerably warmer. And that’s a *good* thing. Just as one would say it is a good thing when job losses go from -80k in January 2009 to -5k in January 2010 (as they have). On that chart, up is good, down is bad, as I said, and you know it.
And, BTW, this is a message board. I don’t feel the need to put others’ posts in quotes. I also don’t get on others for typos and spelling errors.
“They disagree with everything no matter what the facts.”
What I like most is that you are now spreading this idea that I am arguing just because I want to argue and not because you and Big Dog are wrong about everything you have said in this thread. Way to deflect. Or is accusing you of deflection getting too close to name calling, which you of course would never, ever do? No, I agree 100% with facts and I’d love it if you’d present some.
Facts are tricky things. You have the facts you believe in and others have the facts they believe in.
Sometimes there are actually facts and other times there are differences of opinion based on facts. In any event, you deal in what you choose to believe as a fact while disparaging what others report and believe as fact.
When I’m wrong feel free to prove it. Lately all you ever say is things like “Well, I’d prove it but I’ve proven it before and you ignored it.” I don’t really buy into that at all. Facts are not tricky. There is a difference between spinning facts and having no facts. I argue that most of the time you fall into the latter.
MIKE: “Darrel even argued with Adam’s point when he thought it was mine.”>>
DAR
Actually I didn’t. I said it was silly to NEED an example when talking about something as simple and basic as this chart. Down is bad, up is good.
And where would I get the idea that the temperature example was yours? YOU said:
“I can’t believe you don’t get it, Adam. My temperature example was spot on.”
So even if Adam used it first, you adopted it.
MIKE: “I don’t feel the need to put others’ posts in quotes.”>>
DAR
As you wish. But the fact is that in several posts above it is nigh impossible to tell whether you are speaking or you are quoting someone. This is not helpful and leads to no end of confusion, which you will either discover the easy way or the hard way.
D.
The following is a cut and past of Darrel’s post:
MIKE: “My temperature example was spot on.”>>
DAR
Okay, let’s go with your silly temperature example. I say silly because, why do we need an “example?” Are we to believe that you can’t understand a job situation improving when less jobs are lost than the month before? Really?
Mike’s temp example: “Or let’s say it’s been 20 below zero and the temperature rises to 5 below zero. Is it still getting cold, just much slower?”
DAR
No, it’s getting WARMER. Considerably warmer. And that’s a *good* thing. Just as one would say it is a good thing when job losses go from -80k in January 2009 to -5k in January 2010 (as they have). On that chart, up is good, down is bad, as I said, and you know it.
End of cut and paste.
Dar, look at your last paragraph. You’re arguing against Adam. Again here’s your paragraph, but you’re arguing with Adam as those are his words in the preceding paragraph:
No, it’s getting WARMER. Considerably warmer. And that’s a *good* thing. Just as one would say it is a good thing when job losses go from -80k in January 2009 to -5k in January 2010 (as they have). On that chart, up is good, down is bad, as I said, and you know it.
MIKE quotes DAR:
“Mike’s temp example: “Or let’s say it’s been 20 below zero and the temperature rises to 5 below zero. Is it still getting cold, just much slower?”
DAR
Yes, that quote was from Adam and I miss-attributed it to you. Perhaps you can now see the importance of actually making it possible for readers to differentiate your comments from people you are quoting. Or not.
I’ll try to make it clearer in the future. Nonetheless, you ripped Adam. Now that’s funny.
Fact Check is not non-partisan and it manipulates information to project a point of view.
Prove it.
There is a difference between spinning facts and having no facts. I argue that most of the time you fall into the latter.
Got any facts to prove that assertion?
You can prove you do have facts by telling me what is non-partisan about FactCheck or how they’ve manipulated information.
Q: Did Michelle Obama and her daughters use taxpayer money to take a European vacation?
A: The first lady, her mother and her children did stay in Europe for a private vacation after the president completed an overseas trip on official business. However, no taxpayer money was used for the first family’s personal expenses.
That’s deceptive.
The key phrase in the answer is “the first family’s personal expenses.”
That deflects from the actual question: “Did Michelle Obama and her daughters use taxpayer money to take a European vacation?”
Yes, they did use taxpayer money. Of course they did. Link
Here’s the question and short answer summary:
Q: Does First Lady Michelle Obama have an “unprecedented” number of staffers?
A: A spokeswoman for the first lady says that Michelle Obama currently has a staff of 24. That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind.
Why not just say YES? That would be the appropriate short answer.
Why add the “but, but, but Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush had large staffs” in the short answer? Link
And here
And then there are those on the left who claim it is partisan for the right.
“Why add the “but, but, but Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush had large staffs” in the short answer?”
DAR
Because it provides context.
The answer to that one is about as simple as it gets. Let’s see the letter the Fact Check is debunking:
This is why the answer lists Hillary and Laura Bush’s staff and doesn’t just say “yes.” Look at the errors in the email. What would they be saying “YES” to? Are you kidding around here or did you not actually read what FactCheck was writing?
On the second one, you ask why not say YES? Because it’s NOT TRUE that she took a tax payer funded vacation. Remember what I said about the difference between spinning facts and having no facts? Well, you’re in the latter again.
Bigd [quotes]: “That deflects from the actual question: “Did Michelle Obama and her daughters use taxpayer money to take a European vacation?”
Yes, they did use taxpayer money. Of course they did.>>
DAR
What a ridiculous example. The question is loaded and ambiguous. Note in the answer answer:
“The first lady, her mother and her children did stay in Europe for a private vacation after the president completed an overseas trip on official business. However, no taxpayer money was used for the first family’s personal expenses.”
It’s entirely appropriate and not deceptive at all to refer to them not using taxpayer money for personal expenses. They were there ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS. So the question is deceptive/ambiguous because it uses the word “vacation” which implies some kind of joy ride. Or that they were only there for a vacation. But they were not. As the question doesn’t reference, they were there *on official business.* So it is entirely appropriate that if they were there and they they go to a movie or whatever, they do this with personal funds.
This is a most childish example of using language as a gotcha. If you can’t see this, try plugging Bush and his girls into the above example and see if you still think it would be perfectly fine to imply they took a “European vacation” because they did some extracurricular things while on a trip for official business.
Good, grief.
D.
Supply side, economics 101.
And Darrel, I said they do this to both sides. I think the 100 year lie that the left told about McCain and Iraq was supported by this group…
If by “this group” you’re still talking about FactCheck then you thought wrong. From Factcheck:
You’re 0 for 3.
Bigd: “I think the 100 year lie that the left told about McCain and Iraq was supported by this group…”>>
DAR
That’s not what I remember. But let’s check and see.
From my records, July 7-8, on this forum:
***FLASHBACK***
Bigd: “Obama… convinced people that McCain said it would be OK to be in the war for 100 years (a blatant lie).”>>
DAR
I thought that was a cheap shot since I understood how McCain meant it.
Factcheck has a overview of it here.
They give it two Pinocchios, which seems about right (four being a whopper).
If that one is a “blatant lie” you must have been really upset when McCain ran with, and wouldn’t back down from this smear:
“Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.”
–McCain “Education” Ad, September 7, 2008.
Fact checker gave that one three Pinocchios.
***END
DAR
So we see, you misremember. And to be clear, the comment about McCain wasn’t a lie. He actually said that. But I thought it was a cheap shot because I understood he didn’t mean it in the way they used what he actually said. This is why politicians have to carefully watch what they *actually* say.
It’s far worse of course to attack someone for something they didn’t *actually* say. I have pointed out several of those around here.
D.
————
“Hardly a ripple of protest was made in 2004 when Reid shamelessly slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English.” –cited by Bigd, not remotely true.
Fact checker is from the Washington Post. That is different from Fact Check, the site you use.
It is misleading if any fact check site says that he said we could be there 100 years without putting it in the proper context.
The lie about Obama is that he had more than one legislative accomplishment because he certainly wants kinder kids to be taught sex ed.
As I stated, Fact Check is misleading. Anyone who uses the McCain quote as a misleading effort to make it look like he said we would be at war for 100 years (which is what they did) then they are not checking facts, they are misleading.
If the question was does Obama believe there are 57 states and I answer by saying that he said that he had two to go and will have visited all 57 states, that would be true but it would give the impression that he believed there were 57.
I think he made a mistake. When Republicans make similar mistakes they are considered morons, Obamabi was just tired…
I wasn’t making a point about factcheck but rather digging up an old quote showing misuse of that McCain quote was not “supported by this group.” Certainly not by me.
Bigd: “The lie about Obama is that he had more than one legislative accomplishment>>
DAR
That’s a lie but it’s absurd and incidental to the real one which you apparently defend?
Bigd: because he certainly wants kinder kids to be taught sex ed.”>>
DAR
It’s a lie and you should know better than to defend it. The ad specifically said Obama supported:
“Legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.”
Wrong, he supported age appropriate sex education. For kindergartners this means stuff like, “if someone touches you in your private place, you go and tell mommy.”
This is appropriate and necessary. It was a disgustingly dishonest and shameless ad, and McCain supported and defended it, even after the error was pointed out.
Bigd: Anyone who uses the McCain quote as a misleading effort to make it look like he said we would be at war for 100 years (which is what they did)>>
DAR
Some did. The following gives good context for what McCain said and meant:
“Cutting off a questioner who talked about the Bush administration’s willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said “Make it a hundred.” He then mentioned that U.S. troops had been in Germany for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years, and added, “That’s fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”
DAR
The comment “make it a hundred” was a poor choice and flippant comment to make when people are especially sensitive about extended stays in a country where troops are dying every day. It was ripe for the plucking during the silly season. He said it, word for word. All that was necessary was removing the context and his clarification. This happens in politics.
Obama said 57 instead of 47 when he was tired on the campaign trail. No end of republicans used this to claim he didn’t know how many states there are. Silly.
So this part of the legislation he voted for only dealt with inappropriate touching?
Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV
Link
I’m still waiting on an example of FactCheck being partisan or distorting the truth. You’re still 0 for 3.
No, I am more like 2 for 3. The McCain issue was a recall that was from a different source (probably Obama because he definitely distorts).
Here is a beat down of the Fact Check of Obama’s position on gun control. They sugar coat, distort and mislead in order to cover for Obama’s actual words and deeds with regard to this issue.
The NRA was correct, the public record backs that up. Fact Check decides to take Obama’s “word” for it using his rhetoric rather than his actual positions.
I’m not sure how you count #1 and #2 since your statement about #1 is clearly false and for #2 Michell Obama clearly did not take a taxpayer funded vacation in Europe.
The NRA one is another swing and a miss. What is the NRA’s basis for saying Obama “plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense”? His past voting record. Even if you stretch the truth to say the NRA is 100% correct on Obama’s past voting record, that does not qualify the NRA to say Obama “plans” to do something without solid proof that Obama plans it. At the most it qualifies them to say Obama would be more likely to ban those things based on his past actions. FactCheck covers that in their long article.
The suggestion that FactCheck is in bed with Obama or the Brady Campaign because of the Annenberg Foundation is another joke. People started spreading that idea around during the primaries and it’s nonsense.
The NRA is the biggest pack of shameless liars. Almost everything they have said about Obama and guns, is a lie.
Well Darrel, we will agree with it because YOU said so. Liar liar pants on fire.
They were right. His words and deeds are proof. I know you fail to see it but it is there.
The fact that he, in his own writing, answered that he favored legislation to ban the sale and possession of handguns is a pretty good indication. He lied about the form too.
I knew you would ignore the evidence. The NRA is correct on this one. Fact Check IGNORED the Obama record and took his word for it.
That is not fact checking.
Now you’re fibbing again. The NRA said Obama “planned” a ban. What is the evidence? His past record. That would be saying you planned to buy an SUV because you bought one in the past. You tell me “No, I’m not buying an SUV.” I turn around and say “Well, I’m not going to ignore the past evidence and just take your word for it! That wouldn’t be fact checking. You are PLANNING to get an SUV.”
And whether you admit it or not that makes you 0 for 4 on your accusations of distorting the truth.
Off Base on Sex Ed
“…the bill, which would have allowed only “age appropriate” material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.” …
“It’s true that the phrase “comprehensive sex education” appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain’s claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it “medically accurate.” It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed “comprehensive sex education” to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be “age-appropriate” for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question:”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314
The actual legislation was linked to. Here are the words:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV
Tell me where the age appropriate part comes in. I see the words SHALL INCLUDE and then those things are not age appropriate for Kinder kids…
Bigd: “The actual legislation was linked to.”>>
DAR
According to the Newsweek article I cited he didn’t even co-sponsor this piece of legislation that never even left committee (i.e. was never finished).
So how are you going to legitimately smear him with this? It’s ridiculous.
This is classic Republican smearing. The bill could have authorized copies of Mein Kampf to go to 3rd Graders and it still would not matter because Obama is not tied to the bill in the way these liars say he is.
According to what I cited he voted for it in its final form. How do we know how many iterations were sent? Something was voted on…
Yeah Adam, ooh call names, liar liar. You really need to stay away from Meathead, he is rubbing off on you from the circle jerks.
Factcheck.org did not use the misleading McCain quote, in fact they called the Dems out for using it in an ad. Click my link above to see for yourself.
I follow an economic writer named Barry Ritholtz whose writings have no political bias. Here’s his blog:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/
About the writer:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/about/
Very interesting post today about jobs:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/employment-chart-roundup/#more-51186
I am betting you will side with Fact Check. But don’t bet, you can’t afford the stakes.
And Obama never voted to allow babies to die after they survived an abortion either. He never did anything (which is pretty close to true).
You people keep saying how wonderful he is and then run from legislation or positions he was involved in if they show him unfavorably.
It does not matter to you. You liars and Kool Aid drinkers are all the same. If Obama raped a 3 year old boy and beheaded his 5 year old sister on TV you would claim it never happened.
Your man boy leader is a wimpy loser who is out of his element.