Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 55 to 63 of 73

Thread: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

  1. #55

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    Ban, go back and look at that chart again. It rose or stayed the same for 21 of the 39 months and none of it has been consistant. There is no overall trend of dropping, in fact since it has risen or stayed the same in more months than it has dropped, I'd say that is the trend if there is one.

    I don't stress the negative, either. I will be quick to point it out in an election year because if I don't, I fear people will vote out of emotion or party instead of facts. Believe me, I want any president to help this country. But when facts are looked at objectively, he hasn't done that. You seem to be stuck on a party instead of a person. I know a lot of people are like that but it's stupid, IMO. Take your ego out of it and accept that sometimes democrats aren't the best for the job and sometimes we vote for the wrong person. I voted for Boehner for years before I opened my eyes to the fact that he is bought and paid for just like most of them in congress. I voted against him in his primary this year, although he won in a landslide. It was humbling to realize that I had been wrong for years, but I had a choice to make a change or double down on stupid. I don't want people to double down on stupid. Voting for Obama would be doing that. Like I said, it's a shame there was no democrat primary.
    That chart DOES NOT show an overall, consistent dropping of the unemployment rate?! If what you say is true, it should be flat, or it should show that it is rising.

    I just asked my wife to interpret it (she didn't know what I was doing) and guess what she saw from that graph? A slowly dropping rate.

    Sorry, but it looks to me that you want to see the economy do poorly. Why is that?
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  2. #56

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    What I'm also curious about is this: why did the rate go up so sharply and drastically from 08-09? That is why I said, as a percentage, Obama has only slightly risen the unemployment rate over what Bush rose it.

    But, back to my question: why did it rise so quickly during that year?
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  3. #57

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    It's very hard to understand what you are trying to say. Look at the chart and notice how many months it rose or stayed the same. You will find that 21 of the 39 months it rose or stayed the same. How is that a trend of dropping? EDIT- We may be getting hung up on the word "consistent". With more months showing a rise or the same rate, nothing is even close to consistent. That is why you can't count on it to continue.

    As to why did it go up drastically from 08-09, I'm not sure. But I'm going to wager a guess that it was Bush's fault and Obama was merely a victim even though it rose under his watch and hasn't dropped to the rates under Bush.

    Now that I've answered your question, answer mine. Why do you make Bush the benchmark for success if he was the worst president in history? Why not compare him to a good president? I'm guessing it's because he doesn't stack up, but I am anxiously awaiting your answer.
    Last edited by quinn14; 05-05-2012 at 04:04 PM.

  4. #58

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post
    That is why I said, as a percentage, Obama has only slightly risen the unemployment rate over what Bush rose it.
    The more I read your posts the more curious I get!! You just admitted that Obama has risen unemployment more than Bush, but it's okay in your mind because its only slightly more. This is what I talk about when I say you are hilariously trying to defend Obama when there is no defense. God help us all if voters think raising unemployment is okay because the guy has a "D" next to his name.

  5. #59

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    I misreported the bridge in question. It was the Ohio Rt 82 bridge rather than the US Interstate Rt. 80 (Ohio Turnpike) bridge. I've rarely been on THAT bridge, which runs parallel to and a bit north of the turnpike.

    I regret the error (which is language our newspaper The Plain Dealer uses to make corrections).
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

  6. #60

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Unemployment rates aside, when discussing middle class money issues, hasn't it been the case that wages have not even been close to keeping up with inflation over the past 15 years. Whereas an economist can say that prices are ONLY UP on food and fuel (as I have heard them say on NPR) and not on durable goods, the non-durables are what the middle class feels.

    Families that have watched their budgets gradually squeezed over time, will not take comfort in dropping unemployment, and will view politicians arguing over those claims to the exclusion of their issues, as out of touch. BEFORE UNEMPLOYMENT SKYROCKETING THE MIDDLE CLASS WAS ALREADY BEING SQUEEZED.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

  7. #61

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Another change that is never discussed, or is discussed in the most cursory fashion, is the distributiion of wealth. This is a puzzler.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

  8. #62

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    Finally on the issue of Tea Party vs. the "occupiers", there really is no comparison. The teapartiers have their core issue of role of government, taxes, and spending. They have political voices that speak for them, and can be readily agreed with or disagreed with. The occupiers, on the other hand, had an issue (financial markets--specifically wall street) but have wandered off-message in a confusing myriad of directions. They have no one that speaks, politically, FOR THEM, though they have sympathizers that might speak OF THEM.

    I bemoan that the discussion of the political clout of the financial industry, and the abuses and very morality of WALL STREET, is left in the hands on a bunch of disorganized fruitcakes, incompetent of articulating a clear message that begs to be heard.

    We need a comprehensive and focused look at the financial markets and Wall Street and it's impact on our nation. It won't happen since Congress is beholden to them, and policy-makers in the executive branch are usually imported from the financial industry where they are invariably important players in maintaining the status quo.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

  9. #63

    Default Re: "Occupiers" try to blow up bridge that I drive on

    A point about the Clinton presidency. He relished debate on varying sides of an issue and had good people working for him. He displayed good judgment. He would make changes. For instance when Mack McClarty was dropping the ball, he reached down into his budget department and elevated this obscure former congressman, Leon Panetta, to be his all-important chief-of-staff. Meanwhile Hillary and Panetta conspired to remove political experts (Begala and Carville) from direct access to Clinton and built a bit of a barrier between political decisions and POLICY decisions. Great move (though the two can never be totally divorced). I voted for the admirable John Kerry, and would have voted for Hillary, which left only Ralph Nader to pencil in as the only candidate who came close to speaking for me.
    DSCH: a Soviet artist's reply to unjust criticism.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •