The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[RogueWriter]

What part are you confused about?
&
Who exactly decided what is the so called "standard?

Any actual fact appears to confound liberals.

 

[JB Lions]

Who exactly decided what is the so called "standard?

Society? Republicans and Democrats? People? News Outlets? It's always been the number used, we've gone over this many times. I pointed out to you it was the number Romney used to go after Obama, with it being over 8%. Of course that backfired when it went under 8%.

It goes like this. The economy was very bad, that started to go downhill under Bush. So this was used against Obama. Economy this, economy that. It used to be the #1 topic they used to go after him. But then the numbers started to change and if they used the numbers that have always been used, it would have shown that. It's about the time they stopped talking about the economy and started talking about all this other stuff.

6.3%, the number both Republicans and Democrats have always used, from a high of 10%. If Romney was in the White House or some other Republican, you would be hearing about it all day long on Fox and Republican sites. You disagree with that?

So in the end, it's a good thing the economy is getting better. I would be happy with that regardless of who was in the White House.

 

[Theo Goodman]

No, it is not the number that has - always- been used. We have been over this. The way that it was calculated was changed, it was not always like this. The goverment decides what is the "offical" rate, not the news outlets or people.

Yes you pointed out the Romney thing, and I also responded many times that I dont care, and that it is not what I am talking about , at all.
Sure maybe FOX et all would be ranting about "low" unemployment if they (REPs) were in office, however they would still be painting a very incompleate picture of unemployment. This is what I mean when I say that this is not about Rep vs. Dem / "Conservitive" vs. "Liberal".

Ironicly as posted above not only am I the only one that thinks that the "offical" number does not reflect reality but also the non conservitive network CNBC even asks that question, and when conducting a poll about it a very large majorty of the vistors agreed with me.

So in the end I disagree that the economy is getting better. I would say that regardless of who was in the White House.
I am wondering how long the DOW bubble can continue before it pops, I guess as long as he interest rates are low it should be fine.

 

[GILSAN]

Ironicly as posted above not only am I the only one that thinks that the "offical" number does not reflect reality but also the non conservitive network CNBC even asks that question, and when conducting a poll about it a very large majorty of the vistors agreed with me.

So in the end I disagree that the economy is getting better. I would say that regardless of who was in the White House.
I am wondering how long the DOW bubble can continue before it pops, I guess as long as he interest rates are low it should be fine.

And Ironically, I agree with you in this matter. In fact I talked about this a long time ago, if not in this thread then in another. Politicians (the vast majority of them) love to manipulate numbers in their favor. Here in Portugal most of our BS, good for nothing, worthless and corrupt Politicians also love to lie and manipulate numbers, including the true unemployment numbers

The gap between rich and poor has widened. Wages of the average American worker have stagnated or gone down in the past 20-30 years. The richest 1% of the population take home 13% of the total wages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/s...ductivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0

I have no problem in the rich getting richer, but NOT at the expense of everyone else, unfortunately since the Politicians are there to protect the very rich as one of their main priorities, it's up to the people to kick them out, come election time.

But then comes election time and the people get manipulated once again by the MSM and politicians to vote on A or B. Only 2 choices... how frustrating... a country with such a diverse variety of people from all over the world, so many different opinions and only 2 parties to choose from.

What amazes me most is that there are people that firmly believe and swear till they are blue in their faces that the unemployment numbers that the governments give us are true and are not lies or manipulated.

Yea right.... and I'm the one who needs help... at least according to a few distinguished and enlightened members of Namepros. But I'm with that

 

[verbster]

Any actual fact appears to confound liberals.

Naw, just the junk that some conservatives claim are "obvious truths and facts" but are almost always just opinions, speculation, outright lies, conspiracy theories, stereotyping, name calling and my favorite, what ifs. All a person has to do is read this thread to discover the faulty logic used to masquerade as facts.

As far as the economy is going, look how hard Theo had to work to try and prove (for some reason) that things weren't better now than 6-8 years ago. If anyone thinks things are as bad now as they were 6-8 years ago, far be it for me to waste time convincing them that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats like a duck and shits like a duck, it's probably a duck, not a fox dressed up like a duck. But sometimes certain people want the duck to be a fox that they'll say it is, and other people who want something to bitch about will accept the lie about the duck being a fox and spread their own lies without ever bothering to check for the truth.

I would enjoy reading any facts you think would confound liberals. It's a fact that the Dow Jones has doubled in the last six years. It's also a fact that the national debt is the highest it's ever been. Maybe Theo can explain why that is. Nothing like a nice graph.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Naw, just the junk that some conservatives claim are "obvious truths and facts" but are almost always just opinions, speculation, outright lies, conspiracy theories, stereotyping, name calling and my favorite, what ifs. All a person has to do is read this thread to discover the faulty logic used to masquerade as facts.

As far as the economy is going, look how hard Theo had to work to try and prove (for some reason) that things weren't better now than 6-8 years ago. If anyone thinks things are as bad now as they were 6-8 years ago, far be it for me to waste time convincing them that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats like a duck and shits like a duck, it's probably a duck, not a fox dressed up like a duck. But sometimes certain people want the duck to be a fox that they'll say it is, and other people who want something to bitch about will accept the lie about the duck being a fox and spread their own lies without ever bothering to check for the truth.

I would enjoy reading any facts you think would confound liberals. It's a fact that the Dow Jones has doubled in the last six years. It's also a fact that the national debt is the highest it's ever been. Maybe Theo can explain why that is. Nothing like a nice graph.

To say that liberals dont use lies, conspiracy theories, speculation, sterotyping and what ifs is in itself an outright lie.

-
-As far as the economy is going, look how hard Theo had to work to try and prove (for some reason) that things weren't better now than 6-8 years ago. -

No, I am saying that the unemployment figure that we are spoon fed does not paint an accurate picture of what is going on in the job market. I am also saying that we are far from a "recovery". Sure if you look at 8 years ago value X and today value X is higher, I am sure there are some, including all unemployment indicators. It is not hard work to show that the economy is far from a "recovery". Of course it would depend on how you define that.
-verb: (for some reason)- what are you trying to say with "for some reason"?

Do you mean that stating over and over that unemployment is down so that means that there is a recovery could mean that the person saying that has a vested interest in the democratic party? No way!
Or perhaps that no matter what, I would say the sky is going to fall? Sorry wrong again.

If you want to call showing graphs "bitching" then fine go for it. Is linking to CNBC bitching too? Or perhaps simply questioning anything that is not the democratic party line would be "bitching".

Most of the time people with zero arguments stoop to the levels of calling people conspiracy theorsts, "just bitching" and the like. You know so called verb: "name calling" . No matter if liberals and conserviatves alike openly question the data that I am talking about and both say that it does not reflect the reality of unemployment. Please tell me exactly what lies I am spreading, if you are going to accuse someone of telling lies then please back it up. Where are these "lies" you speak of?

If you look back in this thead, I am by no means the person that started the graphism however when the graphs display unwanted data they will automaticly be crititzed as "just graphs" ok fine.

ATH debt, because the goverment needed the money and cant pay back what it owes.
I asume you asked the question in a partisan way however, that you are trying to say that the republicans are responsible for the ATH debt, oh yes they are very much so. How much has the war on terrorism cost again? What party started 2 wars?

ATH Dow, becuase of nearly free money for banks ie low interest rates. Conservative investments and putting money on the real economy barley keeps up with inflation, so put it on the stock market woo wee! Kinda like a Obama-Regan mix of trickle down , hoping that the ATH dow trickles down to the rest of the economy, but it is not.

 

[DU]

So in the end, it's a good thing the economy is getting better. I would be happy with that regardless of who was in the White House.

The economy is getting better? Depends.

The economy as defined by arbitrarily defined numbers? Perhaps.
The economy as defined by me and almost every single person I know? No.

 

[DU]

Personally, I could use a little mass appeal and wealth in my life right now; I have needs.

But you didn't ask for more or less intelligence

I've come to the conclusion that my focus is going to be on being happy. I've seen blow you away happy people with nothing and rich people with nothing but angst... I'm shooting for the realistic middle.

One of my favorite quotes:

When I was 5 years-old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy.' They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life.

 

[RogueWriter]

But you didn't ask for more or less intelligence

Fairly happy on that account already, thanks. But my financial shortcomings, they are many, lol.

One of my favorite quotes:

When I was 5 years-old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy.' They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life.

That's a nice quote, thanks.


As for the economy, not so good, I think. What has changed over the last 6 years that would make the economy improve? More legislation, not less results in lower production. More taxes, not less, results in lower production. Rising food costs, healthcare expenses, utilities, general living expenses means less reinvestment than otherwise. I think the economy is fairly fragile. All it is going to take is one little shove, a plunging dow or a shortage, or one more war, biting inflation, etc. Maybe it is just me but I get the impression that the U.S. government is juggling their expenses and someone keeps tossing new ones into the mix.

 

[JB Lions]

The economy is getting better? Depends.

The economy as defined by arbitrarily defined numbers? Perhaps.
The economy as defined by me and almost every single person I know? No.

I wouldn't say the numbers are arbitrary, the numbers reflect what's happening.

Even if I took it down to a more personal/regional level, same thing.

Had a friend, couldn't get a job for a long time, now has 2.

Had a cousin that was an aircraft mechanic, couldn't get a job for a long time, got a nice one a few months ago.

The Unemployment Rate in Florida has dropped to 6.2% down from 7.6% same time last year - http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2014/05/16/florida-s-unemployment-rate-drops-in-april.html

I know the housing market is getting back since my mother owns some properties, I see people who are in real estate on a community board talking about that and the numbers back that up as well -

"Orlando's housing market continues to see across-the-board increases in median prices, with each sales type and each home type recording positive year-to-year comparisons in April."

http://www.orlandorealtors.org/?page=marketstatistics

I see people elsewhere talking about the Housing market getting back, Shane posted it on his blog - "After watching the crazy activity at the nursery and the way homes are selling in my city , I figure it’s time to buy a couple homes to flip."

The Consumer Confidence Level is up as well - The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® Improves in May

"In fact, the percentage of consumers expecting their incomes to grow over the next six months is the highest since December 2007 (20.2 percent). Thus, despite last month’s decline, consumers’ confidence appears to be growing.”

https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerconfidence.cfm

If it's not getting better, you think it's getting worse?

I think people have already forgotten how bad it was 6 years ago. The worst recession since the Great Depression.

 

[GILSAN]

One of my favorite quotes:

When I was 5 years-old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy.' They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life.

Interesting that just 2 days ago I saw this great quote on Facebook... in Portuguese

 

[verbster]

To say that liberals dont use lies, conspiracy theories, speculation, sterotyping and what ifs is in itself an outright lie.

Where's the direct quote that I said anything like that? This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said speculation, opinions and faulty logic are masquerading as facts and truth. Not once did I say that liberals are or aren't guilty of anything, but you somehow not only made the giant leap that I did, you also used your own incorrect conclusions to claim something I didn't even say was a lie. I'm having a hard time understanding if you knew I didn't say this, but you accused me of it anyway, or you simply didn't grok what I wrote.

-
-As far as the economy is going, look how hard Theo had to work to try and prove (for some reason) that things weren't better now than 6-8 years ago. -

No, I am saying that the unemployment figure that we are spoon fed does not paint an accurate picture of what is going on in the job market. I am also saying that we are far from a "recovery". Sure if you look at 8 years ago value X and today value X is higher, I am sure there are some, including all unemployment indicators. It is not hard work to show that the economy is far from a "recovery". Of course it would depend on how you define that.
-verb: (for some reason)- what are you trying to say with "for some reason"?

What I meant by "for some reason" is that it appears some people look for ways to make the glass half full seem like a bad thing. Almost anything can be made to look good or bad using statistics; I find it depressing when people go out of their way to prove the negative over anything else. I'm not saying the bad should be ignored, just that the positive deserves just as much recognition as the bad, and politics should not automatically pre-determine a person's perspective on negatives or positives.

-Do you mean that stating over and over that unemployment is down so that means that there is a recovery could mean that the person saying that has a vested interest in the democratic party? No way!
Or perhaps that no matter what, I would say the sky is going to fall? Sorry wrong again. .

I freely admit I have no idea what you are asking or stating here.

-If you want to call showing graphs "bitching" then fine go for it. Is linking to CNBC bitching too? Or perhaps simply questioning anything that is not the democratic party line would be "bitching" .

I meant the same thing I just explained. Some people feel the need to bitch by dwelling on anything they can to blame or find fault simply because of political affiliation, not because the bitching is necessarily true or not. To disregard the truth or make the truth something to make look bad when it's not is a waste of time..[/QUOTE]

-Most of the time people with zero arguments stoop to the levels of calling people conspiracy theorsts, "just bitching" and the like. You know so called verb: "name calling" . No matter if liberals and conserviatves alike openly question the data that I am talking about and both say that it does not reflect the reality of unemployment. Please tell me exactly what lies I am spreading, if you are going to accuse someone of telling lies then please back it up. Where are these "lies" you speak of? .

I wasn't aware I called you a liar. What I said, was that some people will accept a lie as truth because they want to have something negative to bitch about, no matter that it isn't true. Are you one of those people? If not, I didn't call you a liar. If you believe there is something wrong with a person pointing out how arguments based on falsehoods and incomplete truths should not be taken seriously, that's your choice. Sometimes pointing out the absurd is a good way to put forth an argument that involves no name-calling at all.
.[/QUOTE]

-If you look back in this thead, I am by no means the person that started the graphism however when the graphs display unwanted data they will automaticly be crititzed as "just graphs" ok fine.

ATH debt, because the goverment needed the money and cant pay back what it owes.
I asume you asked the question in a partisan way however, that you are trying to say that the republicans are responsible for the ATH debt, oh yes they are very much so. How much has the war on terrorism cost again? What party started 2 wars? .

Your assumption is wrong. I'm not trying to blame republicans for the debt. I'm as astonished as anyone by how high it is. Sometimes a question is just a question.

-ATH Dow

, becuase of nearly free money for banks ie low interest rates. Conservative investments and putting money on the real economy barley keeps up with inflation, so put it on the stock market woo wee! Kinda like a Obama-Regan mix of trickle down , hoping that the ATH dow trickles down to the rest of the economy, but it is not.

 

[verbster]

As for the economy, not so good, I think. What has changed over the last 6 years that would make the economy improve? More legislation, not less results in lower production. More taxes, not less, results in lower production. Rising food costs, healthcare expenses, utilities, general living expenses means less reinvestment than otherwise. I think the economy is fairly fragile. All it is going to take is one little shove, a plunging dow or a shortage, or one more war, biting inflation, etc. Maybe it is just me but I get the impression that the U.S. government is juggling their expenses and someone keeps tossing new ones into the mix.

Are you sure about production rates? It's my understanding that "production" has increased substantially over the last several years, while median salaries have declined substantially, despite healthy corporate profits.

" All it is going to take is one little shove, a plunging dow or a shortage, or one more war, biting inflation, etc." What do you expect to happen? Are you worried enough to not invest in stock?

As for the economy, the positive side is that retiring baby-boomers are breathing much easier today than several years ago when the market took a plunge. The negative side is the trend of cities curing their fiscal troubles by going through bankruptcy, which leaves so many people high and dry, losing their pensions, their livelihoods. I think this is something not being figured into the overall situation. Don't know how it will play out, but it worries me.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Where's the direct quote that I said anything like that? This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said speculation, opinions and faulty logic are masquerading as facts and truth. Not once did I say that liberals are or aren't guilty of anything, but you somehow not only made the giant leap that I did, you also used your own incorrect conclusions to claim something I didn't even say was a lie. I'm having a hard time understanding if you knew I didn't say this, but you accused me of it anyway, or you simply didn't grok what I wrote.

This is the quote that is something like "that":

Naw, just the junk that some conservatives claim are "obvious truths and facts" but are almost always just opinions, speculation, outright lies, conspiracy theories, stereotyping, name calling and my favorite, what ifs. All a person has to do is read this thread to discover the faulty logic used to masquerade as facts.

It is in fact something like that.
Its true that you did not say that exactly, you said that conservatives tell lies, however since you responded to my post I thought you meant that I was a conservative telling lies. If you mean that liberals also use as a minimum just as much false logic, lies and misinformation then fine.

What I meant by "for some reason" is that it appears some people look for ways to make the glass half full seem like a bad thing. Almost anything can be made to look good or bad using statistics; I find it depressing when people go out of their way to prove the negative over anything else. I'm not saying the bad should be ignored, just that the positive deserves just as much recognition as the bad, and politics should not automatically pre-determine a person's perspective on negatives or positives.

Yes of course, however simply pointing out facts and that the glass could possibly be slightly less than half full should not be automaticly jumped on as "bitching". - "dwelling" on a topic, you mean always posting the same indicator that happens to be the lowest of them all? Yes you could call that "dwelling".

Theo_Goodman said: ↑
-Do you mean that stating over and over that unemployment is down so that means that there is a recovery could mean that the person saying that has a vested interest in the democratic party? No way!
Or perhaps that no matter what, I would say the sky is going to fall? Sorry wrong again. .
I freely admit I have no idea what you are asking or stating here.

This is exactly what you are talking about. Presenting the unemployment figures as they have been presented in a way that shows a vested interest in the sucsess of the democratic party, not simply "oh hey the glass is half full now". What is depressing is that people go out of their way to simply belive what they are spoon fed from the goverment & politcal parties. This information is always regarded as "truth".

I wasn't aware I called you a liar. What I said, was that some people will accept a lie as truth because they want to have something negative to bitch about, no matter that it isn't true. Are you one of those people? If not, I didn't call you a liar. If you believe there is something wrong with a person pointing out how arguments based on falsehoods and incomplete truths should not be taken seriously, that's your choice. Sometimes pointing out the absurd is a good way to put forth an argument that involves no name-calling at all.
.

I assumed you called me a liar if I am wrong then sorry. You responded to my post and I thought you were calling me a conservative liar. What I am saying is that some people will accept a lie as a truth because they want to have some thing positive to cheer about, no matter that it isn´t true. Please point out the exact false hoods in the data that I show, if you see any.


About "debt"
As long as we use debt based currency the nation and/or the people will be in debt, otherwise a debt based currency will not function.






​

 

[Theo Goodman]

Since we are sharing individual stories and opinions to show how great the "recovery" is:


Campbell Soup [CPB] Earnings Call 5/19/14: “I’m disappointed that we failed to deliver the sales growth that we anticipated in the third quarter.



We believe this is in part a reflection of the persistence of an exceptionally challenging consumer environment.



As many others in the industry have noted, consumers are suffering from continuing underemployment, reductions in the SNAP program and rising home, fuel and healthcare costs. In combination, these factors are significantly affecting purchasing behavior, pressuring the performance of a number of our key customers and constraining growth across the industry, particularly in center store categories.”

So is this guy "bitching"? Maybe he is a conservative? Or for sure a conspiracy theorist.

 

[verbster]

Since we are sharing individual stories and opinions to show how great the "recovery" is:


Campbell Soup [CPB] Earnings Call 5/19/14: “I’m disappointed that we failed to deliver the sales growth that we anticipated in the third quarter.



We believe this is in part a reflection of the persistence of an exceptionally challenging consumer environment.



As many others in the industry have noted, consumers are suffering from continuing underemployment, reductions in the SNAP program and rising home, fuel and healthcare costs. In combination, these factors are significantly affecting purchasing behavior, pressuring the performance of a number of our key customers and constraining growth across the industry, particularly in center store categories.”

So is this guy "bitching"? Maybe he is a conservative? Or for sure a conspiracy theorist.

I don't have enough info from this to make a factual judgment, but I'll offer my opinion.

Sounds like he is trying to voice his company's explanation of why Campbell didn't sell more soup by putting all of the blame on external factors.

What I get from this is that his customer base is low income homes, and poor people are having to make severe choices, and soup isn't their choice. So, would his reasoning explain the monster profits of Exxon? How did other companies with the same target consumer as Campbell's do in the quarter?

It's pretty easy for companies to over estimate profit, and then blame the economy when expectations aren't met. Who knows? It may be that Campbell's simply didn't have realistic expectations. That's where I would look first.

Then I would look at what Campbell's did, could have done, or didn't do to help their sales based on what they already knew about economic conditions.

 

[Theo Goodman]

sure of course, that is all true

CEO confidence is at a 2014 low, I wont post a graph.

 

[JB Lions]

Since we are sharing individual stories and opinions to show how great the "recovery" is:


Campbell Soup [CPB] Earnings Call 5/19/14: “I’m disappointed that we failed to deliver the sales growth that we anticipated in the third quarter.



We believe this is in part a reflection of the persistence of an exceptionally challenging consumer environment.



As many others in the industry have noted, consumers are suffering from continuing underemployment, reductions in the SNAP program and rising home, fuel and healthcare costs. In combination, these factors are significantly affecting purchasing behavior, pressuring the performance of a number of our key customers and constraining growth across the industry, particularly in center store categories.”

So is this guy "bitching"? Maybe he is a conservative? Or for sure a conspiracy theorist.

Or maybe you literally just picked 1 example. At any time in our history you can find people doing bad, great, or holding steady. So you picked the opinion of 1 person on how consumers are doing, threw out stuff like Consumer Confidence?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/27/consumer-confidence-may/9609529/

So is this guy "bitching"? Maybe he is a conservative? Or for sure a conspiracy theorist.

Or he's not taking responsibility for poor performance and looking for a scapegoat. Because other companies are doing good.

 

[Theo Goodman]

-So you picked the opinion of 1 person on how consumers are doing, threw out stuff like Consumer Confidence?-

No.

You mean you picked the lowest indicator for unemployment and added in a little consumer confidence (since those are "positive") and threw out stuff like CEO confidence, net change in employment vs. food stamps/disabilty, social benefits as a % of real disposable income ,how real income is declining as employment improves, employee hoarding, what kinds of jobs people are getting, and more factors?

Its simple:
post lots of graphs and info= "its just graphs anyone can show what they want with graphs only the goverment can make graphs that are "offical" & you are bitching"
post a single opinion or indicator= "what you are just going to post one indicator and ignore all the postive stuff?"



As you (JB) pointed out obervations of single people, I thought I would join in.

The quote is in the context of CEO confidence back at 2014 lows, and not in a vaccum of one opinion.
-Because other companies are doing good.- but CEO confidence is down, and at a disconnect with the consumer C index.

Bloomberg, known conspiracy theorists

Even though Consumer Confidence is up, people are not spending, as if they were tapped out from spending in March and April.

 

[DU]

CORPORATE profits are at their highest level in at least 85 years. GOOD ECONOMY
Employee compensation is at the lowest level in 65 years. BAD ECONOMY

Depends where you are on the food chain, don't you think?