Phony Presidential Outrage

Always fun to duel with you Wellendowed: Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No, he'll blame Clinton, it's his fault for not taking out Bin Laden before Bush got in office. Originally Posted by surcher

Yeah, 'cause Bush did such a good job of taking out bin-Laden!

You still don't get it. Its not the math, its the political will. Social Security was started under FDR, Medicaid under LBJ. Those folks knew the system was doomed it was just a matter of when. For the past 30 years I've said I'm not depending on Social Security for my retirement, but after contributing $150K+ into the system, I want to see value for my investment.
! Originally Posted by gnadfly

Make up your mind already. Why the hell do you wanna see value in something you do not depend on?

But you want to throw Granny under the bus and call the Republicans heartless.
! Originally Posted by gnadfly

Granny is about to die, throwing her under the bus is charitable. Plus she set up a system where she did not put enough in to cover her retirement. She expects her grandkids to foot the bill. Senility must be a bitch.

We should do what Vet's do if we really want to contain costs.

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid was always a matter of "when" not "if." Its happened on Obama's watch - accept it. They were Dim plans and the chickens are coming home to roost on a Dim president.

! Originally Posted by gnadfly

No it hasn't. You are lying. It is not broke. It has a huge stockpile of reserves. It will last way past his getting booted out of office, whether that be in 2012 or 2016. Why do you lie like that? Probably because you do not think it a lie. Which is worse? Lying and not knowing you are lying or lying and knowing so? I think the first sad and the second much worse. Which one were you doing?

Then you are so self-involved that you think people are STUPID. Folks have been saying that SS/Med have been doomed for decades! Even after Reagan passed regulations postponing the inevitable.

! Originally Posted by gnadfly

Quit being so stupid. I have said that people are stupid on this subject. I am sure there are subjects that you are well versed in, to date you have shown no proclivity in this one. You appear very stupid on this subject matter. That does not make you stupid. But I could be wrong.

But WTF saw it coming! We're just "late to the party." And his solution is throw Granny under the bus! And call the Republicans "Heartless" and "The Party of 'NO'".

Fuckin' HILARIOUS! Welcome to the Republican Party WTF! Originally Posted by gnadfly

I said both peeps are stupid on this subject matter....well I do not think the politicians are. They are just trying to get elected. They play to the masses and the masses are stupid on this subject. No matter how you slice or dice it.

When this program was set up people did not live this long, they should have made adjustments but that stupid Laffer fellow got all you folks believing that all tax increases are bad. That is pure and stupid. Another subject you seems stupid on. I have seen you post intelligent things , so I know you are not stupid but I think you are not very smart in arguing with me on this subject and I am far from a detailed expert on this subject but at least I can eaisly see the big picture. You need to look at things from an historical POV.

WTF still doesn't get it. Here's the latest punchline: It's not broke, there's plenty of reserves. STILL, THROW GRANNY UNDER THE BUS!

HA! HA! HA!

WTF still doesn't get it. Here's the latest punchline: It's not broke, there's plenty of reserves. STILL, THROW GRANNY UNDER THE BUS!

HA! HA! HA! Originally Posted by gnadfly

No, you said it was broke now. That was a lie.

I said it will go broke under the current format.

If you are having a hard time with that concept then no wonder you can not understand government revenues vs outlays!

I think anyone an idiot that thinks you can't raise taxes yet do not want the government to reduce it's outlay (especially in in Medicare).

If the shoe fits, wear it.

I now think you are lying on purpose. You still may not understand Medicare but you are doing nothing but lying about WTF I said.

...so I'll just deflect to show my intellectual shortcomings... Originally Posted by gnadfly

You "quote" me as saying something i did not say, and pass it off as if it were a real quote. Talk about desperate.

MODS: Please delete post #56.

I now think you are lying on purpose. Originally Posted by WTF

Proven.

You "quote" me as saying something i did not say, and pass it off as if it were a real quote. Talk about desperate.

MODS: Please delete post #56.



Proven. Originally Posted by Doove

I have long felt that Buffyfly rarely had anything of value to offer in his posts. But I will admit that occasionally he hits the nail on the head. See below!

...so I'll just deflect to show my intellectual shortcomings... Originally Posted by gnadfly

Always fun to duel with you Wellendowed: Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Whirlway let me sum this up because you can't possible be this naive- let's say I was the CEO of ACME corporation and I was over 1000 employees. Let's say that due to my poor business skills and overall performance that I cause the company to go in the red. Let's say because of my management or lack there of I had to lay off 30% of my employees. I eventually get fired/replaced/resigned whatever you want and you take over as CEO. Now it's 3 years removed from when I took over and you have the company heading back in the right direction- you don't have us totally out of the red but significant process- the company didn't go out of the business and you didn't have to file for Bankruptcy- you also managed to re-hire 20% of the 30 % that were laid off when I was CEO.
Now whirl would it be fair for me to chastise you and say: "Well Whirl there's still 10% of the work force who hasn't been re-hired and you are not totally out of the red yet so I don't think you are doing a great job because ACME corporation 3 years after you took over is not making record profits and we still have some people laid off.... Now whirl wouldn't I look look like a jackass.
Whirl are you going to tell me in the above situation if someone was to ask you: Mr. Whirlaway why haven't you re-hired back all the employees and why are there still 10% of acme workers without a job- are you not going to same in so many words: " This is not an easy fix- I am making progress based on the fuck ups and incompetence of the previous CEO? Or are you going to say :"Yes this is all my fuck- up and I even take blame for the CEO before me who nearly bankrupted the company and caused 30% of the workforce to lose their job..." Which one is the correct assessment? Easily the former because although you are the new CEO part of getting the company back on track is to at first fix my fuck ups? Why is this any different- they gave Reagan a pass- go back in history and see how long it took Reagan to get us on track? Are you going to lie or distort history and say Reagan fixed things in his first 3 years? In fact he didn't see success to his 2nd term and that is why Obama deserves or rather will get a 2nd term.
Answer this question with a Yes or No: Is the UE rate lower today than Obama's 1st day in office?
Again I rest my case!

let's say I was the CEO of ACME corporation and I was over 1000 employees. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Excellent analogy.

I have serious concerns that the unemployment rate might not come down significantly for many years to come. American company's have been looking abroad to expand their business interests for years. The trend has been to close American factories and open facilities abroad. We should be working on legislation that would strongly discourage corporations from shutting down American facilities and moving elsewhere!

My unsolicited oberservation: While most Americans are extremely proud to be citizens of this country, their patriotism does not extend to the cash register at the local Wally World!

I have serious concerns that the unemployment rate might not come down significantly for many years to come. Originally Posted by bigtex

Tex, it can come down, but only if wages and benefits for American workers fall. With a global economy, manufacturing will always go to the cheaoest source of reliable labor. That ain't us. If we are going to compete, the cost of labor has to come down. If the cost of labor doesn't come down, then unemployment will rise.

Globalization has been VERY bad for the American worker and the American middle class. You can see it in the trend over the past 25 years in retirement plans. Businesses (even small business) used to routinely offer defined benefit pension plans. Over time, those changed to defined contribution plans. With the further passage of time, businesses have reduced the amounts they pay into those defined contribution plans, and increasingly don't offer a plan at all, making the employee entirely responsible for his post-retirement income through IRAs.

China's average standard of living will rise and ours will fall until the cost of production and delivery are roughly equivalent between our two countries. Where they meet will not be a happy place for most Americans. Perhaps the worst part is that Chinese production costs would be lower than ours even if wages and benefits were comparable because of their lack of regulation. Pure free marketers likely orgasm at the though of it, but I prefer not have melamine in my milk, or soy sauce made from human hair. When businesses aren't regulated, they are guided solely by the profit motive, and that leads to reducing costs wherever possible, with predictable results.

Without a serious change in policy in this country regarding trade and globalization, we're headed directly to poverty, without passing 'Go'.

You (gnadfly) "quote" me as saying something i did not say, and pass it off as if it were a real quote. Talk about desperate.

MODS: Please delete post #56. Originally Posted by Doove

MODS: At the very least, edit out the "quoted" portion of post #56 in this thread, since it "quotes" me as having said something i did not say.

Or....give a reason as to why not.

Wellendowed: You never answer questions put to you, all you do is just ask more and more questions of others...please tell me how much more you think the "rich" should pay?



To continue your anaology; the new ACME CEO inherited a mess of a company, but he has embarked on a business plan that is irresponsible and is not proudcing a recovery in the ACME balance sheets. Furtermore, the ACME stockholders don't believe the new CEOs bullshit anymore and are getting ready to convene a stockholders meeting to toss the incompetent fool out and replace him with an adult who can manage the company back to health and recovery !



The current unemployment of 9.2% is higher than the day Obama took office. Here is the data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. between Jan-Feb 2009 - when Obam took office - the unemployment rate was 7.8% to 8.2%.... (http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm).. You obviously believe otherwise, so give me you data and source.

Whirlway let me sum this up because you can't possible be this naive- let's say I was the CEO of ACME corporation and I was over 1000 employees. Let's say that due to my poor business skills and overall performance that I cause the company to go in the red. Let's say because of my management or lack there of I had to lay off 30% of my employees. I eventually get fired/replaced/resigned whatever you want and you take over as CEO. Now it's 3 years removed from when I took over and you have the company heading back in the right direction- you don't have us totally out of the red but significant process- the company didn't go out of the business and you didn't have to file for Bankruptcy- you also managed to re-hire 20% of the 30 % that were laid off when I was CEO.
Now whirl would it be fair for me to chastise you and say: "Well Whirl there's still 10% of the work force who hasn't been re-hired and you are not totally out of the red yet so I don't think you are doing a great job because ACME corporation 3 years after you took over is not making record profits and we still have some people laid off.... Now whirl wouldn't I look look like a jackass.
Whirl are you going to tell me in the above situation if someone was to ask you: Mr. Whirlaway why haven't you re-hired back all the employees and why are there still 10% of acme workers without a job- are you not going to same in so many words: " This is not an easy fix- I am making progress based on the fuck ups and incompetence of the previous CEO? Or are you going to say :"Yes this is all my fuck- up and I even take blame for the CEO before me who nearly bankrupted the company and caused 30% of the workforce to lose their job..." Which one is the correct assessment? Easily the former because although you are the new CEO part of getting the company back on track is to at first fix my fuck ups? Why is this any different- they gave Reagan a pass- go back in history and see how long it took Reagan to get us on track? Are you going to lie or distort history and say Reagan fixed things in his first 3 years? In fact he didn't see success to his 2nd term and that is why Obama deserves or rather will get a 2nd term.
Answer this question with a Yes or No: Is the UE rate lower today than Obama's 1st day in office? No - see above and below...
Again I rest my case! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

To continue your anaology; the new ACME CEO inherited a mess of a company, but he has embarked on a business plan that is irresponsible and is not proudcing a recovery in the ACME balance sheets. Furtermore, the ACME stockholders don't believe the new CEOs bullshit anymore and are getting ready to convene a stockholders meeting to toss the incompetent fool out and replace him with an adult who can manage the company back to health and recovery ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Which is sort of funny, because the company's board of directors is more interested in breaking the company's union, so they're refusing to allow the CEO to raise prices on the products ACME sells, in spite of all the evidence suggesting the lowering of prices by the previous CEO did nothing to increase market share. Or that raising prices back to what they once were will do nothing to decrease market share. So one of the biggest obstacles faced by the current CEO is the revenue shortfall being insisted upon by the board of directors - all in an effort to destroy the little guy working for the company.

Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment chart

Kinda looks like the trend is going down, don't it?

I think the honest interpretation is after Obama was elected the unemployment rate skyrocketed, then came back down briefly, before going back up to the current 9.2% ! And the most recent trend line is up, up up !





But I suppose you could spin it your way.

But as D. Puloff has said, middle America isn't sitting around the kitchen table discussing the direction of the unemployment numbers. It still isn't anywhere near the 8.0% that Obama's EC advisor Roomer said it would be if we passed the (nearly) $1 trillion stimulus bill.