And wingnut Jones resigns in a letter dated Sept. 5th and released near midnight on the 6th. SHHHHH maybe no one will notice Van the Man is not here anymore. But the Times and the Post are on the beat, with the WAPO running their first story on this guy. Oh and its all the right wing's fault. Gee I wonder why nobody reads newspapers anymore.

 

Van Jones, the 'Green Jobs' Czar is completely bats*** crazy. It's very telling that someone as out of his mind as this guy would be in charge of what is supposedly going to save the economy.

I really enjoyed the jobs report this time around... Yeah the numbers are narrowing a lot... Did the press miss the July downward revision by 110,000 jobs? That was the month when they tried to up tick the unemployment rate. Yeah...

I really enjoyed the jobs report this time around... Yeah the numbers are narrowing a lot... Did the press miss the July downward revision by 110,000 jobs? That was the month when they tried to up tick the unemployment rate. Yeah...

 

US GOV: "There were 250,000 jobs lost in August, but unemployment is going down!"

 

lol

 

yea right it is.

No one believed me when I applied this level of skepticism to the jobs numbers in the previous 8 years. "Oh, the economy is fine, it's just you crazy libs trying to make the President look bad."

No one believed me when I applied this level of skepticism to the jobs numbers in the previous 8 years. "Oh, the economy is fine, it's just you crazy libs trying to make the President look bad."

That's right, Balta, it's a conspiracy to doubt you libs. Wah.

That's right, Balta, it's a conspiracy to doubt you libs. Wah.

No conspiracy. Just pointing out that you guys defended those numbers and asked why the media wouldn't cover how good the economy was when Bush was running things. And I mean specifically you guys...there was at least a handful of those posts and threads here over the years. Now suddenly you've all decided you agree with me and those numbers are garbage. I think I can enjoy an I told you so or 50.

No conspiracy. Just pointing out that you guys defended those numbers and asked why the media wouldn't cover how good the economy was when Bush was running things. And I mean specifically you guys...there was at least a handful of those posts and threads here over the years. Now suddenly you've all decided you agree with me and those numbers are garbage. I think I can enjoy an I told you so or 50.

 

I'll grant you recognition on the 'told you so' as far as real unemployment statistics.

 

But the unemployment numbers seen during G.W. Bush will not be back until 2014 (if even then). So, yea, it was a hell of a lot better than now. Not saying W didn't embrace policies that help create this mess, as he did.

 

Oh, you misinterpreted the U-6 definition recently. There is my told you so.

Edited September 7, 200916 yr by mr_genius

No conspiracy. Just pointing out that you guys defended those numbers and asked why the media wouldn't cover how good the economy was when Bush was running things. And I mean specifically you guys...there was at least a handful of those posts and threads here over the years. Now suddenly you've all decided you agree with me and those numbers are garbage. I think I can enjoy an I told you so or 50.

 

Nice. They revised the numbers. Not me, not us, the government. I think you are b****ing up the wrong thread.

Nice. They revised the numbers. Not me, not us, the government. I think you are b****ing up the wrong thread.

You're missing the point of my B****ing.

You're missing the point of my B****ing.

 

Oh I get the point... we are doubting the honesty of this administration. Oh Horrible Republicans.

Oh I get the point... we are doubting the honesty of this administration. Oh Horrible Republicans.

And yet, you scoffed when I applied that same doubt to the man of God we had running things before this.

And yet, you scoffed when I applied that same doubt to the man of God we had running things before this.

 

And yet you are running around with the same blind support of this administration that used to drive you so nuts before. Ironic, isn't it.

And yet you are running around with the same blind support of this administration that used to drive you so nuts before. Ironic, isn't it.

 

indeed

And yet you are running around with the same blind support of this administration that used to drive you so nuts before. Ironic, isn't it.

Not on the unemployment numbers I haven't. I'm pretty sure I've been arguing that they're still worse than what you're quoting and that they're no where near catching the magnitude of the hit that the American job market has taken. Plus, they're not likely to come back since we've so drastically overbuilt housing and we're not investing nearly enough in growth (green) industries. Hence that whole U6 discussion that Mr_g and I had. And since we're so willing to protect the health insurance companies, we're making sure small business stays dead and the sick stay bankrupt.

Not on the unemployment numbers I haven't. I'm pretty sure I've been arguing that they're still worse than what you're quoting and that they're no where near catching the magnitude of the hit that the American job market has taken. Plus, they're not likely to come back since we've so drastically overbuilt housing and we're not investing nearly enough in growth (green) industries. Hence that whole U6 discussion that Mr_g and I had. And since we're so willing to protect the health insurance companies, we're making sure small business stays dead and the sick stay bankrupt.

Let's go ahead and kill the one industry that's still adding jobs. That way, the government owns everything.

 

Let's go ahead and kill the one industry that's still adding jobs. That way, the government owns everything.

 

What is really scary is how bad the jobs numbers would look if it wasn't for governmental hiring.

Let's go ahead and kill the one industry that's still adding jobs. That way, the government owns everything.

The government is adding jobs as well, yet you guys want to shrink the size of government. Your argument implies that since the government is adding jobs, we shouldn't do anything to limit its growth. Just like we shouldn't do anything to hurt the health care industry, it's adding jobs!

 

Sure, higher taxes and higher health care costs may kill jobs elsewhere, but that's unimportant.

The government is adding jobs as well, yet you guys want to shrink the size of government. Your argument implies that since the government is adding jobs, we shouldn't do anything to limit its growth. Just like we shouldn't do anything to hurt the health care industry, it's adding jobs!

 

Sure, higher taxes and higher health care costs may kill jobs elsewhere, but that's unimportant.

The government adding jobs while the private sector bleeds is a zero sum (or in fact negative) game.

 

The government adding jobs while the private sector bleeds is a zero sum (or in fact negative) game.

And the health care industry adding jobs while the private sector bleeds is not a negative game?

And the health care industry adding jobs while the private sector bleeds is not a negative game?

The point is it's the one area in the private sector consistently adding jobs. So, let's have the government take control of it too... which will then make the negative even more negative. Woot!

 

The point is it's the one area in the private sector consistently adding jobs. So, let's have the government take control of it too... which will then make the negative even more negative. Woot!

If the health care sector is adding jobs at the expense of the rest of the economy, then having the government take it over would do exactly that. Thus creating a positive.

 

You're missing the metaphor here. Just because something is adding jobs doesn't mean that it benefits the economy as a whole. The continued expansion of health expenditures is a stranglehold on consumer spending and job growth everywhere else except in the health care sector.

If the health care sector is adding jobs at the expense of the rest of the economy, then having the government take it over would do exactly that. Thus creating a positive.

 

You're missing the metaphor here. Just because something is adding jobs doesn't mean that it benefits the economy as a whole. The continued expansion of health expenditures is a stranglehold on consumer spending and job growth everywhere else except in the health care sector.

LMAO. I get it. Government baby! Everything private destroys the wealth of everything else. Gotta transfer that health, I mean wealth somehow!

 

LMAO. I get it. Government baby! Everything private destroys the wealth of everything else. Gotta transfer that health, I mean wealth somehow!

Based on your argument, if the government instituted a $10,000 a year tax on every small business employee and used some portion of that money to create jobs, that would be something you'd love to support.

 

Because you're arguing that health insurers doing exactly that is a wonderful thing. Since the health sector is growing, we shouldn't touch it, regardless of the impact on everyone else.

Based on your argument, if the government instituted a $10,000 a year tax on every small business employee and used some portion of that money to create jobs, that would be something you'd love to support.

 

Because you're arguing that health insurers doing exactly that is a wonderful thing. Since the health sector is growing, we shouldn't touch it, regardless of the impact on everyone else.

 

I love the assumption that government will actually cut costs... Sure they will, if they destroy service and choice.

I love the assumption that government will actually cut costs... Sure they will, if they destroy service and choice.

And considering the lack of choice and poor service for anyone but the wealthiest that is part of our current system, that's a chance I'm willing to take.