PDA

View Full Version : Former regime member speaks truth!



LWW
07-07-2011, 03:58 AM
Obama lied, jobs died. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU_9pUljKEk)

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 10:45 AM
Important note:

Images in LWW's mirror are reverse reality.

Meaning, of course, this link doesn't show her saying anything like this.

LWW
07-07-2011, 05:42 PM
Really? Really? <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Really?</span>

Then please edify us as to what it does say?

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 07:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Really? Really? <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Really?</span>

Then please edify us as to what it does say? </div></div>

Res ipsa loquitur, which please review.

LWW
07-08-2011, 04:04 AM
I did ... and, you await the "TRUTH" to be revealed from the regime.

Soflasnapper
07-08-2011, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did ... and, you await the "TRUTH" to be revealed from the regime. </div></div>

I'm surprised you knew I get copied on blast texts from Obama, but he really doesn't give me talking points. To date, I have not contributed any money to O's (former) campaign or his direct subsequent fundraising. I voted against him in the Florida primary back when.

But I noticed upon review again of this linked clip, that nowhere is Obama even mentioned, still less that he lied in any respect, and nothing about jobs died, either.

So, yes, REALLY.

LWW
07-08-2011, 05:43 PM
So the fact that she said we had a "jobless and growthless recovery" doesn't actually mean that she said we had a jobless and growthless recovery?

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 07:05 PM
Yes, that's exactly true.

I know you don't understand why.

If any nuance is required, you never get it that I've ever seen.

A 'jobless' recovery is one in which there is enough gdp growth to think there should be significant jobs growth, and yet the job growth is anemic, or going negative at the same time (see 1992, in GHW Bush's recovery, where the EU rate INCREASED during recovery from about 7.1% beginning the election year to 7.8%) .

Roehmer's point is that it is not really a 'jobless' recovery, since there is NOT so high a gdp growth that one should expect a flood of new job creation. So she discusses that it is instead a 'growthless' recovery (nota bene, scare quotes indicating this is a term of art that does NOT mean there is no growth), wherein it is not surprising that there is no surge of job creation.

She explains what she means by 'growthless recovery,' and it means that although there is nominal growth, positive real growth in the gdp, it's sub-par compared to other recoveries, and she gives various numbers by comparison to illustrate what she's referring to. Although there were some quarters where growth had gotten robust (4%+), overall it's settled down to this 2% range, which has us barely treading water.

So she doesn't say there is no job growth-- it's averaged 160,000 a month in the private sector for this year, iirc. She doesn't say there is no real gdp growth-- it's been in positive territory since the end of the recession (which ended about the time of the implementation of the stimulus program).

The difference is that most recessions are business-cycle and interest rate-hike related, so they can be cured by lowering interest rates, and interest-rate sensitive sectors like housing can lead the recovery. Clearly that is not an available option now given where housing and interest rates are. Nor was this recession a function of rising rates of interest, subject to recovering by reversing that rise.

This was a systematic failure, the result of the hollowing out of all industry in favor of the FIRE section of the economy (finance, insurance, real estate), and it is a very different situation.

LWW
07-11-2011, 03:40 AM
So her point wasn't that Obamanomics was a failure, it was that Obamanomics was a failure and that failure proves it's success?

Soflasnapper
07-13-2011, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So her point wasn't that Obamanomics was a failure, it was that Obamanomics was a failure and that failure proves it's success? </div></div>

Just as she didn't say anyone lied, or that jobs died, your previous headline claim on this thread, she did not say anything about the stimulus having failed, either.

When a car crash or gunshot victim comes into the hospital, codes out, and then after having his life saved is recovering in the CCU with weak but stable vitals, that hospital staff has done their job, and done it well. Even if the patient faces extensive recuperation time and rehabilitation before he can resume his normal life activities. Even if because of lack of work and income, and huge treatment expenses, his finances are in disarray.

Apparently, you'd claim they failed entirely, because the guy couldn't get back to his gym workouts for a long time, and because he's going to have a hard time paying back all that extra he now owes.

Something over $20 trillion in wealth went poof, not to be seen again, and you think we should have normal growth and normal unemployment in short order, and we don't, so the program addressing that situation must have been a failure? Think a little bit harder.