• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low

jhmd2000 said:
Jack Welch uncorks (and lands a haymaker on Austa(i)n Goolsbee):

"... I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=article
Click to expand...

Is this your two wrongs make a right comment?
 
Clown post, bro.

Goolsbee accused the Bush government of shifting people off UI and onto SSDI to make things look better, something quite different than suggesting BLS fudged numbers. Especially when the only appointed position in the agency is held by a career bureaucrat because Obama's appointee has been filibustered. Pubs gonn' pub, I guess.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Jack Welch uncorks (and lands a haymaker on Austa(i)n Goolsbee):

"... I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=article
Click to expand...


Guess Goolsbee has a pretty good chin.

In 2003, Goolsbee argued the unemployment situation was worse than being reflected in official numbers, saying some jobless were not being counted as unemployed due to changes in law and policy. He did not charge that the rate was being manipulated by the White House for short-term political motivations.
 
ONW said:
Guess Goolsbee has a pretty good chin.

In 2003, Goolsbee argued the unemployment situation was worse than being reflected in official numbers, saying some jobless were not being counted as unemployed due to changes in law and policy. He did not charge that the rate was being manipulated by the White House for short-term political motivations.
Click to expand...

That's a good point...shocked no one made it before.
 
Let's all be honest...here are the responses to the monthly job report by the GOP ( different scenarios)
- unemployment stays slightly above 8%{response} Obama is too busy campaigning to focus on the economy.
-unemployment drops bellow 5% {response} Obama is cooking the books
If you think that the republican party was hoping for good job numbers then you are kidding yourself....that is very sad
 
Both parties are desperate to win this election because whoever the President is for the next 4 years will look good in comparison to the President for the past 4 years.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
And, when the special people in the government tell it to do so, it creates money from absolutely nothing and spreads it around to the friends of the government people.
Click to expand...

Is DODO the reincarnation of tjmd?

"tjcmd
Recruit
58 posts this site
Send Private Message
Posted: 12/27/2011 8:07 AM
Build A Political Philosophy
I have noticed that very few people base their political views on principles. No one could survive this way in medicine or physics, but we do it in politics. Maybe we CAN find some non-refutable political principles.

I think I have found one: No one should ever introduce force or fraud into an interaction involving adult, mentally competent human beings where there has previously been no force or fraud.

Please disabuse me of this notion. Find a few counterexamples to this that we can discuss. To keep it simple, let's start with situations involving only one or two people. We can generalize to more people later if the principle seems to work with two people.

If you can find a good counterexample involving only one or two people, I will make a $100 (one hundred) contribution to the Deacon Club in your name. Otherwise I will make it in my name. A moderator could serve as judge, or we can vote if there is no mutual agreement. I really just want to find out what i have not considered. Go Deacs!"
 
ChrisL68 said:
Both parties are desperate to win this election because whoever the President is for the next 4 years will look good in comparison to the President for the past 4 years.
Click to expand...

The slight difference - if one wins and is successful, he'll say its because of the policies the current President enacted from 2009-2012. If the other is elected, he'll say its in spite of them.
 
Wow numbers look really good today. (Except for that apparently California forgot to report their numbers)
 
89DeaconMike said:
Wow numbers look really good today. (Except for that apparently California forgot to report their numbers)
Click to expand...

Seriously, if you're trying to avoid the appearance of conjuring up numbers that benefit the president, you gotta avoid amateur shit like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top