Promises Promises

[Trampled Underfoot]

And for the record, you don't think it's mathematically possible (not that the point has any basis in basic job creation statistics, BTW) that a President could CREATE a base number of jobs that are more than another President CREATED, and still have higher unemployment numbers? Are you kidding me? You really don't see how that could be possible? Creating more jobs than another president, is the point. Not other stuff... no matter how hard you try to combine them. You don't think jobs are created and lost? Unemployment could always go up, even if more new jobs are created, than in another administration. Seems pretty simple to me. You can argue NET job scenarios, sure. That's ANOTHER subject. You can't see that? Really?

Chadman,
I wouldn't expect a response from doggie for awhile. There was a KKK documentary on the History channel tonight. I suspect he will be watching it over and over for a few days. Just thought I would warn you if there is a delay.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I would think it would be very simple. You are trying to combine statistics into something that works better for you. If I create a job, does it matter if someone in New York loses a job? Didn't I still create a job? That's the POINT, and was the POINT of the original comments, and is what I am referring to. HOW MANY JOBS WERE CREATED. Not net jobs for a period, how much unemployment there was. HOW MANY JOBS WERE CREATED.

I'm not avoiding YOUR question/explanation. Your question/explanation is a different topic. Much like your comment that you attribute to democrats, Pelosi, and Kerry is a different topic than their comments and points, and was never said by any of them. It was only said BY YOU. And yet, you blame me, and them, for avoiding YOUR POINT.

They made a comment. It apparently is quite accurate, based on two sources, one conservative, one liberal. You said they said something else, which they didn't, and now say I'm avoiding the incorrect comment and your new point.

Conservative logic, at it's finest. :0074 Apparently conservatives subscribe to both fuzzy math AND fuzzy english now. You accuse me of dancing, and I have been specifically on point throughout this thread. You have tried to change the subject, and dance around me pinning you down on being incorrect. So, whatever you feel you need to do to avoid being wrong... carry on.

--am I assessing this correctly that you agree the only way he could add 21 million more yet have more people unemployed is because he lost more than 21 million existing jobs?

If so you could put up new chart with jobs lost and Clinton would lead the pack on your chart.
Yes?

Now my final question-

Do you think Americans are more concerned with whether --
--they have a job period (conservative source-bureau of statistics)
--or whether its an existing job or new job (liberal source -pelosi)

--so why present the rope a dope stats and act like they are relevant:shrug:

Liberals may get to do same trick with Obama if he gets the carbon tax through.

They could add 50,000 green jobs while losing 200,000 other jobs in energy related fields and we could look at your new jobs added chart--

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So if little Johnny came up to you in class today and asked--

Professor Chad
Who had more people employed
during their 8 years GW or Billy?
--and is it true(yes or no) that Obama currently has the worst emploment record since great depression.

What would your answer be?

 

[Chadman]

Wayne, again, and again, you are talking about different things than what Pelosi, Kerry, and democrats were talking about. The point of my posts was that you said they said something other than they said. My chart, and the Wall Street Journal link talked about what they were referring to. It's that simple. No dancing, no avoiding, no misrepresenting. At least on my side. It's one point, it's backed up by numbers from both sides of the political fence.

You make a false claim, and then say they were wrong for saying it (when they were right), see facts showing they were right, and ask me to discuss other issues besides the issue I (and they) were talking about. You ask me to put up a new chart about the new subject you are talking about, and ask a new (final) question and then ask yet another question.

I think we've beaten this dead horse enough, at least I have, and we will have another thread for the archives for the next time you misrepresent what democrats, Pelosi, and Kerry said. Have a good one. :0074

 

[Trench]

Quit the dancing

Hey Dogs... looks like you're the one dancing, as usual... :0064

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wayne, again, and again, you are talking about different things than what Pelosi, Kerry, and democrats were talking about. The point of my posts was that you said they said something other than they said. My chart, and the Wall Street Journal link talked about what they were referring to. It's that simple. No dancing, no avoiding, no misrepresenting. At least on my side. It's one point, it's backed up by numbers from both sides of the political fence.

You make a false claim, and then say they were wrong for saying it (when they were right), see facts showing they were right, and ask me to discuss other issues besides the issue I (and they) were talking about. You ask me to put up a new chart about the new subject you are talking about, and ask a new (final) question and then ask yet another question.

I think we've beaten this dead horse enough, at least I have, and we will have another thread for the archives for the next time you misrepresent what democrats, Pelosi, and Kerry said. Have a good one. :0074

Does that mean I and little johnny can expect no answer- AGAIN

Thats ok--the answer is apparent.

You need to stick to my english tutoring--

I seem to get a lot of that in this section while never getting any from financial or handicapping section in 10 + years.

---and most ironic thing is -it is always from the no name ankle biters--the unemployed--or those on the gov tit. There got to be a lesson there somewhere. :SIB

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

---and most ironic thing is -it is always from the no name ankle biters--the unemployed--or those on the gov tit. There got to be a lesson there somewhere. :SIB

....because all liberals are unemployed. Got it.

 

[Chadman]

Okay, I don't mind talking about what you'd prefer to talk about (for obvious reasons, who likes to be proven wrong, right?). I believe you last assessment was that Clinton had a higher unemployment rate during his administration than Bush did? Well, it took me about 2 minutes to find someone who did a study on this, and it seems to be a person with no agenda, just deals with economic numbers, etc. He took his numbers from the National Labor Statistics, which you want us to look at. He makes the following findings, which are interesting to note, considering your statement:

Which Political Party Has Presided Over the Highest Unemployment Rates Since 1948?

I've received a number of emails over the past few months asking if I could do a breakdown of historical national unemployment rates based on which political party is occupying the White House.

For those people - here you go.

The BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) has monthly national unemployment data published on their site from January of 1948 until present day.

That's a total of 745 months worth of data.

To start - the AVERAGE monthly national unemployment rate between January, 1948 and January, 2010? 5.66%.

The highest unemployment rate posted during that time? 10.8% (November, December of 1982).

The lowest unemployment rate posted during that time? 2.5% (May, June of 1953).

--

Since January of 1948, Democrats have occupied the White House for a total of 313 months (out of a possible 745).

The average monthly national unemployment rate during those 313 months? 5.29%.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have occupied the White House for a total of 432 months since January of 1948 (out of a total of 745).

The average monthly national unemployment rate during those 432 months? 5.93%.

So, according to the data from BLS.gov, the national unemployment rate has been, on average, 0.64% higher when a Republican has been occupying the White House.

Here is a breakdown of each president and the average unemployment rate while they were in office:

Harry S. Truman (D) - 4.26%
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) - 4.89%
John F. Kennedy (D) - 5.99%
Lyndon B. Johnson (D) - 4.22%
Richard Nixon (R) - 5.00%
Gerald Ford (R) - 7.77%
Jimmy Carter (D) - 6.54%
Ronald Reagan (R) - 7.54%
George H.W. Bush (R) - 6.3%
Bill Clinton (D) - 5.2%
George W. Bush (R) - 5.27%
Barack Obama (D) - 9.3%

The link: http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/02/20/are-there-higher-unemployment-rates-when-republicans-or-democrats-are-in-office/

This would make you wrong AGAIN, and I guess I'm looking forward to your next assertion. :shrug:

But, since Little Johnny is asking something specific about economics in my English class, I suppose I should try to help him. I know how important Little Johnny's education is to you, so, here is what I would say to his question:


Professor Chad
Who had more people employed
during their 8 years GW or Billy? From what I can tell from researching sources, and not making false statements based on political affiliation, Billy had more people employed during his 8 years that GW. At least he had fewer people unemployed on average during his administration than GW did.

--and is it true(yes or no) that Obama currently has the worst emploment record since great depression. Yes, Billy, I would have to say that during the early part of his administration, he would have to be rated as having the worst employment record. Of course, some people like to blame the early part of an administration's performance on the previous administration, since many economic indicators are called "trailing indicators" and come as a result of previous situations. I know some people like to blame Clinton for Bush's initial situation, but ironically, Johnny, they don't blame Bush for Obama's initial situation. Do you think that makes sense, Johnny? (This will get Johnny to be an active learner, and take part in the learning process...)

How did I do, Wayne? Now that I've addressed Johnny's question, do you admit your comments about democrats, Pelosi, and Kerry were misrepresentations of what they actually said?
:0corn

 

[Chadman]

By the way, Johnny, I'm sorry I called you Billy in that last answer. I should remember your name, with all the off topic economics questions you ask in my English class.
:SIB

 

[THE KOD]

By the way, Johnny, I'm sorry I called you Billy in that last answer. I should remember your name, with all the off topic economics questions you ask in my English class.
:SIB

...............................................................

Nice rip again on DTBlackgumby

ba da bing

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Okay, I don't mind talking about what you'd prefer to talk about (for obvious reasons, who likes to be proven wrong, right?). I believe you last assessment was that Clinton had a higher unemployment rate during his administration than Bush did? Well, it took me about 2 minutes to find someone who did a study on this, and it seems to be a person with no agenda, just deals with economic numbers, etc. He took his numbers from the National Labor Statistics, which you want us to look at. He makes the following findings, which are interesting to note, considering your statement:

Which Political Party Has Presided Over the Highest Unemployment Rates Since 1948?

I've received a number of emails over the past few months asking if I could do a breakdown of historical national unemployment rates based on which political party is occupying the White House.

For those people - here you go.

The BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) has monthly national unemployment data published on their site from January of 1948 until present day.

That's a total of 745 months worth of data.

To start - the AVERAGE monthly national unemployment rate between January, 1948 and January, 2010? 5.66%.

The highest unemployment rate posted during that time? 10.8% (November, December of 1982).

The lowest unemployment rate posted during that time? 2.5% (May, June of 1953).

--

Since January of 1948, Democrats have occupied the White House for a total of 313 months (out of a possible 745).

The average monthly national unemployment rate during those 313 months? 5.29%.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have occupied the White House for a total of 432 months since January of 1948 (out of a total of 745).

The average monthly national unemployment rate during those 432 months? 5.93%.

So, according to the data from BLS.gov, the national unemployment rate has been, on average, 0.64% higher when a Republican has been occupying the White House.

Here is a breakdown of each president and the average unemployment rate while they were in office:

Harry S. Truman (D) - 4.26%
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) - 4.89%
John F. Kennedy (D) - 5.99%
Lyndon B. Johnson (D) - 4.22%
Richard Nixon (R) - 5.00%
Gerald Ford (R) - 7.77%
Jimmy Carter (D) - 6.54%
Ronald Reagan (R) - 7.54%
George H.W. Bush (R) - 6.3%
Bill Clinton (D) - 5.2%
George W. Bush (R) - 5.27%
Barack Obama (D) - 9.3%

The link: http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/02/2...-when-republicans-or-democrats-are-in-office/

This would make you wrong AGAIN, and I guess I'm looking forward to your next assertion. :shrug:

But, since Little Johnny is asking something specific about economics in my English class, I suppose I should try to help him. I know how important Little Johnny's education is to you, so, here is what I would say to his question:


Professor Chad
Who had more people employed
during their 8 years GW or Billy? From what I can tell from researching sources, and not making false statements based on political affiliation, Billy had more people employed during his 8 years that GW. At least he had fewer people unemployed on average during his administration than GW did.

--and is it true(yes or no) that Obama currently has the worst emploment record since great depression. Yes, Billy, I would have to say that during the early part of his administration, he would have to be rated as having the worst employment record. Of course, some people like to blame the early part of an administration's performance on the previous administration, since many economic indicators are called "trailing indicators" and come as a result of previous situations. I know some people like to blame Clinton for Bush's initial situation, but ironically, Johnny, they don't blame Bush for Obama's initial situation. Do you think that makes sense, Johnny? (This will get Johnny to be an active learner, and take part in the learning process...)

How did I do, Wayne? Now that I've addressed Johnny's question, do you admit your comments about democrats, Pelosi, and Kerry were misrepresentations of what they actually said?
:0corn

Shhhez How long did you have to search to come up with these voodo economics--
The calculations are simple--unless your objective is to deviate from them.

The standard for unemployment once again is The bureau of statistics--here they are
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

All one has to do is add the #'s for each and divide by # of months for ave. Fair for both.


Yourexpert David Manual (who I can't locate on google search) :SIB --couldn't even deviate much from the norm with "his" method to remotely indicate GW had worst employment record since great depression.

What is voodoo math?

Voodoo math is anything that will lead you in diff direction from these standards simplest terms to sway opinion in their favor and is used by both parties--as your example is trying--another is to once again lead people away from the standard unemployment that is easily and accurately measured by unemployments claims that can't be verified--and few can other than standard unemploment. How do they calculate a saved job-new job-old job?

Lets take at A classic--

2-09 Dems passed the hurried up stimulus 787 billion stimulus in middle of the night without one reb supporting it to prevent unemployment from going above 8%.

After it was apparent it was one of the greatest failures/waste of money in history-and unemployment not only did not abate but increased-they had to devise plan to keep peoples eye off these standard stats that can be measured accurately--so they come up with new sats/talking point "jobs saved" that they know can not be measured accurately.

After about 4 months of pounding this rhetoric even the liberal press gets pissed being made to look like fools so Gumby goes to the council again to find another voodoo trick to deviate from real #'s.

Next grift---We know the #'s are terrible BUT they could be worse if we didn't pass it.
Some bite but most know its been over year and a half and "real numbers" are getting worse and the rope a dope rhetoric is getting old.

O goes back to his council--"Guys we need something new--even Da Base ain't biting anymore--what can we do that all will rally around and make them forget the "real" #'s
The answer was unanimous - It was Boooosh

That is voodoo econmics in its purest form.
I am sure in years to come we will see charts with how successful O was with his "jobs saved"-and other unverifiable stats.

--but thing to remember is--when someone is trying to deviate from standard stats or go about explaining simple calculations in long drawn out format--they are generally applying voodoo eco in some form. If they need 3 paragraphs to explain that 2+2 isn't 4--you may want to look further.

--and about the stimulus and why it didn't work--it was rushed through by one party-without one vote of confidence from opposing party. After smoke cleared and they had chance to read it--about 1/3 of bill was for pet projects-pork and entitlements--from the horses mouth
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

Is a shame we and next generation will be footing tab for one parties socialist agenda.

Pesonally I'd like to see some bill passed that would prevent either party from being able to pass legislation on a sole partisan basis again.

only postive note is it will end come Nov--however the 2 trillion + deficits last 2 years will be hard to recoup--without "voodoo economics".
______________________________

No wonder I can't find anything on your guy Chad--How did you find him?
I think you and I have been only people there in month of October :shrug:
However I did get this--

Audience Snapshot

Based on internet averages, davemanuel.com is visited more frequently by users who are over 65 years old and have no college education.

:00x31


http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/davemanuel.com#

 

[Trench]

Is a shame we and next generation will be footing tab for one parties socialist agenda.

That's an interesting thought and I agree that it IS a shame that socialism so often has to bail out capitalism...

 

[THE KOD]

it really dont make a shit

we are footing the bill for all the chit that went on 20 years ago

this shit never changes.

the neocons just want to use it as fodder for their
arguments.

when it dont mean two chits in a barrell

 

[Trench]

Shhhez

only postive note is it will end come Nov--however the 2 trillion + deficits last 2 years will be hard to recoup--without "voodoo economics".
______________________________

The truly sad irony here is that Doggie actually believes the party that invented voodoo economics and created the deficits we're now running is the party that will fix them. And he thinks they'll do it with tax cuts for the rich while expanding our bloated military empire.

"Ya can't fix stupid, son..."

 

[Chadman]

Wayne, before you decided to ask me to do the simple math to come up with the simple average, did you happen to do the math, to check out your point and the numbers of my source? You spent several paragraphs trying to lecture me on how bad my source was, and how those that see things differently than you engage in voodoo mathematics to alter the accurate scenario.

I thought it strange that someone who apparently is in some kind of finance and economic business with a website like that would be so far off. So, I did the math.

Clinton, term 1993 - 2000.
Base unemployment average of 5.2%

Bush, term 2001 - 2008.
Base unemployment average of 5.2625%

Another interesting tidbit that I had forgotten was the the NBLS changed how they measured unemployment which resulted in lower percentages than previous years. So, Clintons first year (and perhaps his second, not sure, but for sure his first) was by far his highest number. If you toss out that year, and average the seven years that were counted the same as the rest of his and all of Bush's years, then his average is 4.957%. Even more impressive, right?

So, I think now I've answered Johnny's questions, I've found sources proving Clinton's unemployment rate was lower than Bush's, I've done the math based on your source and using your equation, finding Clinton's unemployment rate was lower than Bush's.

Any other way you want me to look at this point you are trying to make? So far, you're coming up short. But I will be prepared the next time you try to make this point, to correct it, much like your other point, which you neglected to address, again. I'll give you another chance:

Do you admit your comments about democrats, Pelosi, and Kerry were misrepresentations of what they actually said?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wayne, before you decided to ask me to do the simple math to come up with the simple average, did you happen to do the math, to check out your point and the numbers of my source? You spent several paragraphs trying to lecture me on how bad my source was, and how those that see things differently than you engage in voodoo mathematics to alter the accurate scenario.

I thought it strange that someone who apparently is in some kind of finance and economic business with a website like that would be so far off. So, I did the math.

Clinton, term 1993 - 2000.
Base unemployment average of 5.2%

Bush, term 2001 - 2008.
Base unemployment average of 5.2625%

Another interesting tidbit that I had forgotten was the the NBLS changed how they measured unemployment which resulted in lower percentages than previous years. So, Clintons first year (and perhaps his second, not sure, but for sure his first) was by far his highest number. If you toss out that year, and average the seven years that were counted the same as the rest of his and all of Bush's years, then his average is 4.957%. Even more impressive, right?

So, I think now I've answered Johnny's questions, I've found sources proving Clinton's unemployment rate was lower than Bush's, I've done the math based on your source and using your equation, finding Clinton's unemployment rate was lower than Bush's.

Any other way you want me to look at this point you are trying to make? So far, you're coming up short. But I will be prepared the next time you try to make this point, to correct it, much like your other point, which you neglected to address, again. I'll give you another chance:

Do you admit your comments about democrats, Pelosi, and Kerry were misrepresentations of what they actually said?

I believe I put up video and did say they said worst job record instead of economy--did you miss the splitting hairs.

Bottom line- the drive by media--liberal element in general has tried to rewrite history for 2 decades depicting Clinton era best thing since sliced bread and GW worst since great depression and did pretty good job of duping the sheep.

The facts prove quite different--

I expect you as an educator to teach those facts you discovered in this thread --and put those graphs (from pelosi) and stats from obscure sources and what you want to believe in perspective.

So now that we got clinton/gw grift cleared up.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe we can move on to Gumby and driving the car in the ditch.

Clinton ran from left 1st 2 years with dismal results and saw rebs take over congress for 1st time in decades (they remained in power in congress from 94 to 2006--some of most prosperous times in history.
Since all spending bills originate in house and all tax laws voted on in congress--the facts would lead me to believe Gumby's trying to rewrite history also--and will pay the price as Clinton in 94.
--and what say you?

 

[Chadman]

I believe I put up video and did say they said worst job record instead of economy--did you miss the splitting hairs.

Bottom line- the drive by media--liberal element in general has tried to rewrite history for 2 decades depicting Clinton era best thing since sliced bread and GW worst since great depression and did pretty good job of duping the sheep.

The facts prove quite different--

I expect you as an educator to teach those facts you discovered in this thread --and put those graphs (from pelosi) and stats from obscure sources and what you want to believe in perspective.

So now that we got clinton/gw grift cleared up.

Grift? Seems to me that everything I put up in this thread proved pretty much what I WAS trying to teach, and have yet to see one example of how any of it was wrong, despite the ridicule of the sources. In fact, I showed how the sources were correct. Again. So, I guess you want me to teach the facts you somehow continue to insinuate were "obscure." One of them could be labeled as obscure I suppose, but it certainly has been proven correct. So, there's that.

Grift? You mean like you saying GW's record on unemployment was better than Clinton's when it wasn't, repeatedly, and ridiculing me and my sources and not doing the simple math when you had not done it yourself (I can only guess)? That kind of grift?

I note you are still saying people are saying the Bush era "was the worst since the Great Depression." Is that another grift, that you keep talking about?

As for all of these assessments by you, the only thing I can agree with in your post(s) here would be your comment:

The facts prove quite different--

 

[THE KOD]

nice rip again Chad.


I think you are finding out its useless arguing with this moron. He mistates facts like he was in charge of the hindu nation.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Grift? Seems to me that everything I put up in this thread proved pretty much what I WAS trying to teach, and have yet to see one example of how any of it was wrong, despite the ridicule of the sources. In fact, I showed how the sources were correct. Again. So, I guess you want me to teach the facts you somehow continue to insinuate were "obscure." One of them could be labeled as obscure I suppose, but it certainly has been proven correct. So, there's that.

Grift? You mean like you saying GW's record on unemployment was better than Clinton's when it wasn't, repeatedly, and ridiculing me and my sources and not doing the simple math when you had not done it yourself (I can only guess)? That kind of grift?

I note you are still saying people are saying the Bush era "was the worst since the Great Depression." Is that another grift, that you keep talking about?

As for all of these assessments by you, the only thing I can agree with in your post(s) here would be your comment:

The facts prove quite different--

By your own admission your haggling over 7/100 of 1% over 16 year period-- and economy vs jobs.

-do you now find it amazing - how the drive by media can portray each adminstration so differently as if they were on opposite ends of the spectrum--and one had both the worst man made and natural disasters to contend with.

 

[Chadman]

I'm haggling? All I'm doing is showing how your comments and points are not accurate, and I'm having to jump through all your hoops to make that happen. I do it because I respect you and your thoughts, most of the time.

You make points that are not true, and you try to paint me as being wrong - for one thing - and somehow make me seem like I'm perpetrating some kind of grift, and I keep exposing each one of your new grifts.

You are wrong, repeatedly, and that's all I'm trying to show here. You won't admit it, and that's fine. It's not haggling, it's continually proving you to be wrong. And I've done that repeatedly, in this thread.

Carry on with your next deflection. Talk about grifting - you are proven wrong on point after point, and you just keep moving on to other points.

Carry on, Wayne. Have a good one. :0074

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Carry on with your next deflection. Talk about grifting - you are proven wrong on point after point, and you just keep moving on to other points.

Carry on, Wayne. Have a good one. :0074

Its been going on for years. Check out the archives.