this is totes on par with going to war that costs trillions and killed thousands of americans.

Yep. Bush lied, people died. Bitter, party of one (or a few), your table awaits.

yes, i'm talking about the war that kiilled thousands of americans, and is easy to support and put magnets up, but not as easy to lose friends to.

 

There is a difference between lies that lead to deaths, lies that lead to torture, than lies about government successes. But seeing as how you are so familiar with how people lie, Y2HH, i bet you didn't support the invasion at all.

yes, i'm talking about the war that kiilled thousands of americans, and is easy to support and put magnets up, but not as easy to lose friends to.

 

There is a difference between lies that lead to deaths, lies that lead to torture, than lies about government successes. But seeing as how you are so familiar with how people lie, Y2HH, i bet you didn't support the invasion at all.

 

Actually, you are right, I do not support this war, and never have. And for the record, I didn't believe the WMD lies from the start, it seemed too sudden of an excuse, not to mention too convienent. But you know what the most surprising thing to me about that entire fiasco was?! That when they didn't find any WMD's...they actually told the truth. To this day I wonder why they didn't just lie again...produce some WMD parts and move on their merry way...no, they choose that moment to start telling the truth.

 

But the fact remains, we are still there...and American soldiers are still dying.

 

And I still don't support it.

Edited November 4, 200916 yr by Y2HH

yes, i'm talking about the war that kiilled thousands of americans, and is easy to support and put magnets up, but not as easy to lose friends to.

 

There is a difference between lies that lead to deaths, lies that lead to torture, than lies about government successes. But seeing as how you are so familiar with how people lie, Y2HH, i bet you didn't support the invasion at all.

I know a lot of people personally that are involved in both wars. Let's not start throwing that crap around, mmmkay? My point was that it's a nice catchy phrase that people love to throw out and it's ridiculous. "Saved or created" is about as stupid as "Bush lied, people died".

 

And, metaphorically, people are economically dying out here right now, and for what? So our current president can pat himself on the back when a government inflated GDP number comes in? He doesn't give a s*** about countless people on this board (for example) that are unemployed; "saved and created jobs" is all for political gain.

I know a lot of people personally that are involved in both wars. Let's not start throwing that crap around, mmmkay? My point was that it's a nice catchy phrase that people love to throw out and it's ridiculous. "Saved or created" is about as stupid as "Bush lied, people died".

 

And, metaphorically, people are economically dying out here right now, and for what? So our current president can pat himself on the back when a government inflated GDP number comes in? He doesn't give a s*** about countless people on this board (for example) that are unemployed; "saved and created jobs" is all for political gain.

 

It's also mathematical crap. When the jobless rate drops and people start going back to work, then you can start taking credit for saving or creating jobs.

 

Until then, all they're doing is replacing fewer jobs than we're losing...so...

I know a lot of people personally that are involved in both wars. Let's not start throwing that crap around, mmmkay? My point was that it's a nice catchy phrase that people love to throw out and it's ridiculous. "Saved or created" is about as stupid as "Bush lied, people died".

 

And, metaphorically, people are economically dying out here right now, and for what? So our current president can pat himself on the back when a government inflated GDP number comes in? He doesn't give a s*** about countless people on this board (for example) that are unemployed; "saved and created jobs" is all for political gain.

That's a little ridiculous. This isn't Obama not giving a s***. This is Obama wanting one thing, getting something different but similar from Congress, and then scrambling to make that look pretty (which was then fully botched by his agencies). Yes, for political gain. But also, I find it absurd to think that Obama wasn't TRYING to do the right thing here. He just failed miserably.

 

And if you are going to compare this to the Iraq War (leaving out stupid bumper sticker slogans), I'll take a botched, half-effective economic stimulus package over an even more expensive war that costs hundreds of thousands of people (including thousands of Americans) their lives, with NOTHING to show for it. This stimulus package failure is epically bad, and will probably cost Obama dearly in political capital, but it pales in comparison to the Iraq War. Its a distant second among costly governmental failures in recent history (but being second is still impressively bad). Failing at trying to create jobs and saving the economy is a hell of a lot better than going to war for no good reason at all.

 

If you ultimately want to use this versus the Iraq War as a way of comparing Obama and W, then Obama is the tallest midget by a good 6 inches.

 

That's a little ridiculous. This isn't Obama not giving a s***. This is Obama wanting one thing, getting something different but similar from Congress, and then scrambling to make that look pretty (which was then fully botched by his agencies). Yes, for political gain. But also, I find it absurd to think that Obama wasn't TRYING to do the right thing here. He just failed miserably.

 

And if you are going to compare this to the Iraq War (leaving out stupid bumper sticker slogans), I'll take a botched, half-effective economic stimulus package over an even more expensive war that costs hundreds of thousands of people (including thousands of Americans) their lives, with NOTHING to show for it. This stimulus package failure is epically bad, and will probably cost Obama dearly in political capital, but it pales in comparison to the Iraq War. Its a distant second among costly governmental failures in recent history (but being second is still impressively bad). Failing at trying to create jobs and saving the economy is a hell of a lot better than going to war for no good reason at all.

 

If you ultimately want to use this versus the Iraq War as a way of comparing Obama and W, then Obama is the tallest midget by a good 6 inches.

 

I don't think Bush nor Obama 'don't give a s***' when it comes to soldiers dying, and I think it's unfair for anyone to claim that about either, no matter what affiliation.

The Republicans would of had a field day talking about Obama's nanny state, socialist agenda wanting to own people's houses. No way that proposal would have passed. Plus, who were you helping and what could they later do for politicians runing for office? Money >>>>> votes.

The Republicans would of had a field day talking about Obama's nanny state, socialist agenda wanting to won people's houses. No way tat proposal would have passed. Plus, who were you helping and what could they later do for politicians runing for office? Money >>>>> votes.

You lost me.

 

You lost me.

 

Which part?

I don't think Bush nor Obama 'don't give a s***' when it comes to soldiers dying, and I think it's unfair for anyone to claim that about either, no matter what affiliation.

No one is.

 

My point was one stupid slogan for another that are both ridiculous. And it creates a lot of false images on both counts. No more, no less...

 

With that said, NSS's post does push me to say that Obama really doesn't give a damn about the private sector jobs creation. Health care and cap and trade are much more important.

And people thought I was crazy for saying from day one that "Jobs Saved" was an impossible number to prove.

And people thought I was crazy for saying from day one that "Jobs Saved" was an impossible number to prove.

Anyone with a molecule of a brain knew/knows this, yet he keeps spouting it off, because he's got nothing else.

And people thought I was crazy for saying from day one that "Jobs Saved" was an impossible number to prove.

 

Perhaps some did. I think it is the same with jobs created, impossible to prove, especially if we try a one to one causality. There are just too many factors to control. I think we can look at trends and within a range see what growth or loss we have. But, last I looked economics was an inexact science.

 

But slowing growth or slowing loss is a real thing, it does happen. But you are right, proving exact numbers just ain't going to happen. So why do so many people want that number?

Perhaps some did. I think it is the same with jobs created, impossible to prove, especially if we try a one to one causality. There are just too many factors to control. I think we can look at trends and within a range see what growth or loss we have. But, last I looked economics was an inexact science.

 

But slowing growth or slowing loss is a real thing, it does happen. But you are right, proving exact numbers just ain't going to happen. So why do so many people want that number?

 

Because it's something to talk about on either side of the fence...and they don't quite understand what you just went over.

But slowing growth or slowing loss is a real thing, it does happen. But you are right, proving exact numbers just ain't going to happen. So why do so many people want that number?

Doesn't this thread answer your question?

 

It gives the Administration an easy bullet point to beat the media with (650,000 jobs!)

 

It gives the Administration's opponents an easy bullet point to beat the Admin. with. (Do some better math!)

 

Everyone's happy, especially the people who aren't out of work.

Doesn't this thread answer your question?

 

It gives the Administration an easy bullet point to beat the media with (650,000 jobs!)

 

It gives the Administration's opponents an easy bullet point to beat the Admin. with. (Do some better math!)

 

Everyone's happy, especially the people who aren't out of work.

 

That only works if the public accepts the number.

Doesn't this thread answer your question?

 

It gives the Administration an easy bullet point to beat the media with (650,000 jobs!)

 

It gives the Administration's opponents an easy bullet point to beat the Admin. with. (Do some better math!)

 

Everyone's happy, especially the people who aren't out of work.

 

This was a mo' betta' way of saying what I said above.

 

I'm not out of work, but I have to say I'm not happy seeing all the job loss...it really sucks. :/

That only works if the public accepts the number.

 

Those who believe, no explanation is necessary, those that do not believe, no explanation will do.

Perhaps some did. I think it is the same with jobs created, impossible to prove, especially if we try a one to one causality. There are just too many factors to control. I think we can look at trends and within a range see what growth or loss we have. But, last I looked economics was an inexact science.

 

But slowing growth or slowing loss is a real thing, it does happen. But you are right, proving exact numbers just ain't going to happen. So why do so many people want that number?

 

Because the administration can't point to the economy improving when unemployment is still getting worse. Jobs saved gives them a chance to say that it could be much worse, but we did all of this and saved X.

That only works if the public accepts the number.

No, it doesn't. It's just like everything else out there; it's treated as an up or down debate. Democrats say adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects the atmosphere, Republicans say coal is good for you. Democrats say x number of jobs were created, Republicans say Hoover was right. Etc. The end result was going to be the same.

Because the administration can't point to the economy improving when unemployment is still getting worse. Jobs saved gives them a chance to say that it could be much worse, but we did all of this and saved X.

 

Jobs is one part of the economy. Wages another. Remember Bush playing that game. We lost high dollar jobs and gained low paying service sector jobs. Regardless if it looks good or bad to whomever, whenever you are turning something around, the first order of business is slowing down to a stop, then turning around. But in today's climate it seems to be far more important to make "your party" look good or the "other party" to look bad. Solutions and progress, actual or perceived, be dammed.

Jobs is one part of the economy. Wages another. Remember Bush playing that game. We lost high dollar jobs and gained low paying service sector jobs. Regardless if it looks good or bad to whomever, whenever you are turning something around, the first order of business is slowing down to a stop, then turning around. But in today's climate it seems to be far more important to make "your party" look good or the "other party" to look bad. Solutions and progress, actual or perceived, be dammed.

 

Its been that way for a while now.

No one is.

 

My point was one stupid slogan for another that are both ridiculous. And it creates a lot of false images on both counts. No more, no less...

 

With that said, NSS's post does push me to say that Obama really doesn't give a damn about the private sector jobs creation. Health care and cap and trade are much more important.

That doesn't really make any sense. Even if you believe Obama wants the government to do everything (which I don't agree with), it still makes no sense for him to NOT want jobs created wherever he can get them. Economy is everything in politics, and his second term hangs in the balance.

 

Its been that way for a while now.

 

yep, and each side seems to get better and better at it while we lose.