Chicago Turns on Obama

"I grew up in a rural area and kids would routinely bring shot guns to school and go hunting after school was done for the day and I'm guessing 95% of the guys carried knifes. So what you ask, well we never had a shooting or a knifing because people had respect for life not because it was illegal to own or bring it to school. "

Thank You

Then you agree that there were no shootings because everyone walked around in fear of one another or knew everyone else was armed.

The lack of incidents was based on the quality of the people rather than the quality of their marksmanship.

It wasn't fear of one another as it was respect of life, two guys could go out back and punch each other silly, Once someone hit the ground the fight was over no one ran and got a gun to get even, the quality of people is another way to put it.
 
I grew up in a rural area and kids would routinely bring shot guns to school and go hunting after school was done for the day and I'm guessing 95% of the guys carried knifes. So what you ask, well we never had a shooting or a knifing because people had respect for life not because it was illegal to own or bring it to school.
Sounds like my high school years from '78 - '82. Respect for life and respect/fear of your elders. Fists were used to settle arguments.
 
Sounds like my high school years from '78 - '82. Respect for life and respect/fear of your elders. Fists were used to settle arguments.

Mine was just in front of you 73-77, and when the fight was over they shook hands and got along
 
Let's change direction for a second.

Wonder what you experts think of this chart?

docpage-recoverystats1.jpg
 
Let's change direction for a second.

Wonder what you experts think of this chart?

I think you should get a better chart. If you look at the research behind it, the largest growth sector in the jobs market is government jobs.

Wonder what you may think of this chart. It's really about time we started putting the blame where it truly lies. Bush and Obama (Presidents) have very little to do with either jobs or deficits, it is mostly Congress which holds the control. The party in control at the time creates the policies for their speaking heads.....
 

Attachments

  • Deficits Congress Control.jpg
    Deficits Congress Control.jpg
    95.6 KB · Views: 10
I think you should get a better chart. If you look at the research behind it, the largest growth sector in the jobs market is government jobs.

Wonder what you may think of this chart. It's really about time we started putting the blame where it truly lies. Bush and Obama (Presidents) have very little to do with either jobs or deficits, it is mostly Congress which holds the control. The party in control at the time creates the policies for their speaking heads.....

Wow! Someone that understands how little power the President has, Thanks Paul:USA:
 
I think you should get a better chart. If you look at the research behind it, the largest growth sector in the jobs market is government jobs.

Wonder what you may think of this chart. It's really about time we started putting the blame where it truly lies. Bush and Obama (Presidents) have very little to do with either jobs or deficits, it is mostly Congress which holds the control. The party in control at the time creates the policies for their speaking heads.....

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

and chartmakers. Right now gubt jobs is good jobs, eh?

It seemed like a sunnyside way to view in a world of bad news. Much of it brought on by congress' complete inability to function. (see: obstructionists, dumb repubs)

My counter to your superior chart would be that regardless of where we place the huge pile of blame on decades of washington-as-usual operations... our situation was in need of help, and Obama did the right thing. There was no painless way to fix this mess. Like losing weight- you didn't get where you are overnight, you ain't gonna fix it overnight.
 
Lies, damn lies and statistics.

and chartmakers. Right now gubt jobs is good jobs, eh?

It seemed like a sunnyside way to view in a world of bad news. Much of it brought on by congress' complete inability to function. (see: obstructionists, dumb repubs)

My counter to your superior chart would be that regardless of where we place the huge pile of blame on decades of washington-as-usual operations... our situation was in need of help, and Obama did the right thing. There was no painless way to fix this mess. Like losing weight- you didn't get where you are overnight, you ain't gonna fix it overnight.

You're on a diet????:sifone:
 
Right now gubt jobs is good jobs, eh?

I disagree. Government jobs are, for the most part, very inefficiently spent dollars, (gleaned from us through taxes), which are usually unecessary. Go to the airport and look at the security operations since the government has taken over. And, the expense per person has more than doubled. If you don't want to review that, try Amtrack or call the IRS with a tax question......


Much of it brought on by congress' complete inability to function. (see: obstructionists, dumb repubs)

You can say dumb repubs, but as the chart clearly shows, it has been the largest deficits everytime the Dems are in control of Congress. The best oversight of the governments fiscal responsibilities seems to be when we have a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Food for thought, huh?????


we place the huge pile of blame on decades of washington-as-usual operations...

The best comment in the post. I absolutely agree.

our situation was in need of help, and Obama did the right thing.

I completely disagree. His oversight is obviously that of a politician and not a plan based on the actual root causes of the issues. Even the head of the CBO told him it was a disaster for the future of this country. Still went ahead. Currently the estimates are we have over 102 trillion dollars of unfunded promisies made over the next 25 years, and the health care reform package that is being pushed would add another couple of trillion.
 
From the CBO's review of the Presidents plan......

In 2010, the deficit would measure 9.9 percent of GDP,
or $1.4 trillion, CBO estimates (see Table 1-1). The
cumulative deficit over the 2010–2019 period would
equal $9.1 trillion (5.2 percent of GDP), more than double
the cumulative deficit projected under the current-law
assumptions embodied in CBO’s March baseline. As a
result, debt held by the public would rise from 57 percent
of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent of GDP by 2019.


If you want, I can copy annd paste the entire report......:sifone:
 
Also from the CBO report......

Revenues

Under current law, revenues would grow from 15.5 percent
of GDP in 2009 to 19.9 percent in 2013, CBO
estimates (see Table 1-2). Much of the projected increase
in revenues occurs because certain provisions of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
(EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) expire at the end of
December 2010
.

So the huge deficits will occur, even though they project a 25% increase in the amount of money the government raises through allowing tax credits and deductions to expire.
 
And an oversight of the situation being created by those business as usual policies of the government....

"Daunting" and "bleak" were just some of the adjectives used by CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf on Tuesday to describe the 10-year budget picture. Spending is projected to outpace revenue, and the debt would soon be two-thirds the size of the overall economy. By 2020, interest payments on that debt would be more than $700 billion, about four times the size of the current amount.

"In sum, the outlook for the federal budget is bleak," Elmendorf said. "U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering."
 
Paul, what most people refuse to acknowledge is that the government's revenue is based on the GDP, about 20%. So to grow revenue you have to increase the GDP, and that is done by lowering taxes not raising them.
 
Jay...here's a question I LOVE to ask any of my Democrat friends:

Just who exactly do you think is gonna pay for this?

I'm still interested in your response, but from MY perspective...it's gonna be the middle class. Crazy how Obama keeps saying he's going to help the middle class and small business...and then does EXACTLY the opposite. My company currently pays almost 100% of health care for our 10 employees (last year we had to ask $10 per month to attempt to defer a tiny bit of the cost). This year, we are facing a 27% increase in that cost (every year it goes up AT LEAST 20%). This is purely voluntary on our part. If Obama gets his way, no longer is it voluntary...it's mandatory...with no room for negotiation. We are a very conservative company financially, and even with that, 2009 was the first year in our 30 year history we did not make a profit (we would have, but my father paid out bonuses to the employees that effectively put us in the red a bit...how many others out there can say a boss would do that for them?). We've watched tons of businesses in the manufacturing sector close their doors in the past couple years...and it will only get worse the more the government decides it needs to lean on small business.

Also...if/when the big hit comes...I daresay that many of us on this board might be forced to find a considerably less-expensive hobby...which means you won't have any more pretty boats to take pictures of...and how will you feel then?
 
My counter to your superior chart would be that regardless of where we place the huge pile of blame on decades of washington-as-usual operations... our situation was in need of help, and Obama did the right thing. There was no painless way to fix this mess. Like losing weight- you didn't get where you are overnight, you ain't gonna fix it overnight.

True, our situation was in need of help...as too doing the right thing; some yes mostly..NO FVCKING WAYThe "stimulus" has hardly been effective by any measure.
 
Let's change direction for a second.

Wonder what you experts think of this chart?

docpage-recoverystats1.jpg

Kinda funny you post a chart from the speaker of the house, what do you think she would project? On the other side, it is a chart about job losses declining, not job growth. Or am I reading it wrong?????

Only one year with job growth under Obama?????? Exactly as good as Bush did.....

So now you're bragging that Obama is just as good as Bush? If you add up his columns of job losses projected as a total, they are greater.....

And his will be in months to lose a greater number of jobs, , not the years it took under Bush.....

Don't Be Fooled By Lower Unemployment Rate, Job Losses Continue to Mount

The U.S. economy shed 20,000 jobs in January, a tad worse than expectations for a reading of flat to up 15,000. The unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 9.7%, a five-month low.

Another positive sign: The labor force grew by 111,000 last month and the so-called real employment rate fell to 16.5% from 17.3%.

But it's a mistake to view the report as unabashedly "good" news.

Beneath the headlines, the government reported the U.S. economy has lost 8.4 million jobs since the recession officially began in December 2007, a sharp upward revision from 7.2 million previously reported; that includes 930,000 jobs more than previously estimated in the 12 months ended March 2009.

In addition, the ranks of the long-term unemployed swelled to over 6 million and the number of "discouraged" job seekers rose to 1.1 million vs. 734,000 a year ago.

Looking at the report, one might logically ask: If jobs growth was minimal (or non-existent) and the labor force grew -- meaning more people are officially being counted as looking for work -- how did the unemployment rate fall?

"The payroll data and the unemployment rate come from two separate surveys, which explains some of the divergence in the data," writes Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, attempting to explain this conundrum.

So, yes, there are quirks in the data, and even some of the pros found this morning's report a bit confusing. The report is a bit of a Rorschach test, with something for bull and bear alike to point to.
 
Last edited:
Paul, I appreciate the dissertation.

Jay...here's a question I LOVE to ask any of my Democrat friends:

Just who exactly do you think is gonna pay for this?

I'm still interested in your response, but from MY perspective...it's gonna be the middle class. Crazy how Obama keeps saying he's going to help the middle class and small business...and then does EXACTLY the opposite.
.?

How do you feel about the President's weekly address today that oulined new help for small businesses?

Help is on the way for America's small businesses, President Obama told listeners this morning in his weekly address, in the form of "more access to credit, more incentives to hire, and more opportunities to grow and sell products all over the world." In a set of remarks sure to warm the heart of Main Street businesses anywhere, the President held up the entrepreneurial American spirit as the soul of the nation; more specifically, he discussed his specific proposals for encouraging small business growth in the current challenging economic climate:

$30 billion will move from TARP funds targeting Wall Street to a Small Business Lending Fund for community banks;

Fee waivers, increased guarantees and expanded SBA-backed loans for small business;

Tax credits for new job creation and wage raises;
Identify innovative businesses and offer targeted financing;
Help small businesses with refinancing of mortgages.


Also...if/when the big hit comes...I daresay that many of us on this board might be forced to find a considerably less-expensive hobby...which means you won't have any more pretty boats to take pictures of...and how will you feel then?

irrelevant. if things get 'that bad' we will all have a big change of lifestyle.
 
Back
Top