carlfense Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The majority of jobs have been Federal/gov't/state increases.........i.e. exploding the public union sector..........i.e. Obama supporters......... You are absolutely wrong. Please. Check it out. You will be surprised at what you find. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Gingrich is done, done, done. He hasn't been getting a lot of press lately, but his comments about the ACLU and to the gay woman the other day are some of the final nails in his coffin. The guy either doesn't get it or he doesn't care. At all. Link to comment
Comish Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Yes he will be painted that way............remains to be seen whether the public buys it. I totally disagree on the debates. Romney is not great on his feet, but BO will not have his electronic crutch (Mr. Teleprompter). As I said to Carlfense. I predict BO cannot defend his record and I don't see the public fallilng for his disingenousness again. But, we will see and the next 10 months will be fun to debate. Ummm.... Obama didn't have a teleprompter in 2008 and demolished McCain, who has decades of experience in debates. Further, have you actually watched the Republican debates? Romney is no smooth talker. Obama will eat him alive. Yes I have watched virtually all of them in their entireity. I agree that Romney is not especially smooth, but Obama isn't either (lots of ah, ah, ah, em, em , stammering) etc. Now, Newt in a debate with BO would be a bloodbath for BO, but Newt isn't going to be the nominee. And using McCain as a reference is worthless................he might have been the worst debater/public speaker ever nominated since the advent of the electronic media. No disrespect for his exempary military service, but he was a woeful candidate. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 McCain was far more electable than Romney. If you're hanging your hopes on Mitt Romney, don't hang them too high. He's got as much chance of being elected president as I have. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 As for Romney, again I disagree. Chosing a proven capitalist with a known record (even as mainstream media demagouge it), I suspect in November most folks will opt for concrete business experience and relegate a community organizer to a one-termer. It will be good sport to argue this over the next 10 months, but go ahead and bookmark me today..............I predict B.O. will be out and it may not even be close. If I'm wrong, I'm sure I will hear about it and will own up to it. But can't see it happening (again, unless there is some major "October Surprise" unleashed as has been the pattern of the media/dem collaboration) in order to "save" the world from the evil wascally wepuplicans............... What do you mean by demagogue? If you mean factual references to Bain business practices . . . well that's hardly demagoguing. How exactly is Romney a "proven capitalist?" Because he made tons of money while laying off thousands of employees and bankrupting factories? Not to mention his record while holding office is more relevant than his time as a venture capitalist. How did Massachusetts do under Romney? I'm talking specifically about jobs/economy. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 By the way - has anyone noticed how the vitriol about Obamacare has virtually stopped from the Right? They see Romney getting elected and they realize how vulnerable he is because of Romneycare, so that attack point has largely been shelved. It'll actually be a weapon against Romney by the Left if he's the candidate, which is rather humorous after all the time the Right put in to building that plank of their platform. If, by some miracle, Romney is able to screw this up and fail to secure the nomination, we'll once again be bombarded with attacks on Obamacare. But I won't miss those attacks should Romney get the nod. Link to comment
Comish Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 McCain was far more electable than Romney. If you're hanging your hopes on Mitt Romney, don't hang them too high. He's got as much chance of being elected president as I have. Mark it down. BO will NOT be re-elected...............and it may not even be close....................(if I'm wrong, feel free to resurrect this thread and I'll own it)............but I just don't see it. I'm not even saying it will be Romney even though it looks pretty much like a done deal today............there is still such a fractious debate between the "moderate" pubs (rinos) and the tea party conservatives that a brokered convention is not totally out of the question. And, I am not "hanging my hopes" on Romney........................as an avid follower of politics for a long spell.................this is just my observation on how it will play out. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I see where you're coming from on Romney. I'm not going to resurrect any predictions and rub anyone's nose in it if they're wrong. I know as much about the future as anyone, and despite the conviction of my statements, I acknowledge my ability to be wrong as much as the next guy. I wouldn't want anyone to dredge up all the errant things I've said and "I told you so" me about them, so of course I won't do that to anyone else. But Obama is still going to get reelected. Not because he's so great, but moreso because the field of Republican choices is so dismal. Like 2008, and 1996, and 1984 (although I don't think ANYONE could have beaten Reagan in 84). Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Gingrich is done, done, done. He hasn't been getting a lot of press lately, but his comments about the ACLU and to the gay woman the other day are some of the final nails in his coffin. The guy either doesn't get it or he doesn't care. At all. The Southern Strategy seems to be working just fine for Mr. Gingrich. He is now polling higher than Romney in South Carolina. His dog whistles are performing quite well. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Looks like jobs are continuing to grow. Unemployment claims at 352,000, fewest since 2008Weekly applications for unemployment benefits plunge to lowest point in nearly 4 years WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of people seeking unemployment benefits plummeted last week to 352,000, the fewest since April 2008. The decline added to evidence that the job market is strengthening. Applications fell 50,000, the biggest drop in the seasonally adjusted figure in more than six years, the Labor Department said Thursday. The four-week average, which smooths out fluctuations, dropped to 379,000. That's the second-lowest such figure in more than three years. A department spokesman cautioned that volatility at this time of year is common. Applications had jumped two weeks ago, largely because companies laid off thousands of temporary workers hired for the holidays. Still, when weekly applications fall consistently below 375,000, it usually signals that hiring is strong enough to push down the unemployment rate. "This continues a clear downshift in claims," said Ian Shepherdson, an economist at High Frequency Economics. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Comish- Did you take a second to look at the private sector jobs figures versus the public sector jobs figures? I'm wondering what you discovered and how you reacted. Link to comment
Comish Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Comish- Did you take a second to look at the private sector jobs figures versus the public sector jobs figures? I'm wondering what you discovered and how you reacted. I took a cursory glance but have to tell you that there seems to be a discrepancy between jobs lost/ jobs created/ public vs private and an array of data that can be skewed to validate almost any point of view. I also admit to becoming increasingly jaded about the release of such figures since bad news is generally dumped late on Friday to minimize public consumption and even worse................way too many times the figures are revised a month of so down the line. I don't really put too much stock in it anymore. By the way, as you have no doubt discerned, I am an unapologetic conservative in the traditional sense ( less government, more personal responsibility, etc) but have a bunch of liberal friends who I enjoy jousting with over the error of their thinking , and I am appreciative of the mutually respective manner of dialogue with most of the libs on this site. (i.e. if you absoutely believe Obama is bad for this country.........you are automatically labeled a racist......I have not encountered that here). I doubt many minds get changed and it seems like the entrenched philosophies spew the same arguments..................but I hope I am at least receptive enough to respectfully investigate opposing views. Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Comish- Did you take a second to look at the private sector jobs figures versus the public sector jobs figures? I'm wondering what you discovered and how you reacted. I took a cursory glance but have to tell you that there seems to be a discrepancy between jobs lost/ jobs created/ public vs private and an array of data that can be skewed to validate almost any point of view. I also admit to becoming increasingly jaded about the release of such figures since bad news is generally dumped late on Friday to minimize public consumption and even worse................way too many times the figures are revised a month of so down the line. I don't really put too much stock in it anymore. By the way, as you have no doubt discerned, I am an unapologetic conservative in the traditional sense ( less government, more personal responsibility, etc) but have a bunch of liberal friends who I enjoy jousting with over the error of their thinking , and I am appreciative of the mutually respective manner of dialogue with most of the libs on this site. (i.e. if you absoutely believe Obama is bad for this country.........you are automatically labeled a racist......I have not encountered that here). I doubt many minds get changed and it seems like the entrenched philosophies spew the same arguments..................but I hope I am at least receptive enough to respectfully investigate opposing views. Agreed, regarding the tone. Hyperbolic reactions are generally mocked into submission around here. My main point is that the private sector has seen a steady increase in job creation. Those numbers are pretty significant . . . around 3 million jobs gained. Simultaneously, the public sector has been rapidly shedding jobs largely due to austerity measures. My complaint is that the GOP argues strenuously for the destruction of those public sector jobs while blaming Obama for the destruction of those jobs! They can't have it both ways. Despite the hyperbole about Obama's supposed drastic increase in the size of government . . . the number of people employed by the government has been shrinking. Just another case of the facts not lining up with a commonly held belief. Link to comment
Comish Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 This graph would appear to validate your claims...............so until/unless I can get around to disproving it...................this round to you.......(for now)............. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 The majority of jobs have been Federal/gov't/state increases.........i.e. exploding the public union sector..........i.e. Obama supporters......... And what is wrong with those jobs? Link to comment
Recommended Posts