7.8%..........

[Jello Biafra]

I am interested to hear your thoughts on what you would have preferred to have been done different. I would also like to hear Mitt's plan, as I have yet to actually hear it either.

As a republican, I would also expect you to tow the company line and employ a 'leave the market alone' plan, which would do, what, exactly, to stop the slide and get the numbers to a spot you find acceptable?

Please enlighten those of us who 'don't get it'.

I'm not a Republican.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The fed answers to the Federal government.

Yeah, but when you claim that the Fed "curiously" does QE in order to help the current President get re-elected as opposed to the more obvious reason, that we were looking at weak ass economic growth for a few quarters, you're kinda entering into conspiracy land. Do you have any evidence for this? It's not like they're going to lose their power if Romney gets elected.

 

[Lord Beasley]

Even if that was the case he played it too safe. I don't see how letting the court of public opinion (driven by the media) think you got your arse handed to you is chess. This especially makes no sense when you have his campaign staff copping pleas and openly saying debate strategy needs to be corrected.

everybody doesnt think that. the right eats its up, Rush nem feeding that nonsense to their supporters, etc etc.

Real recognize real and romney lookin' real unfamiliar right now. mitt will play himself out the race, why not sit back and let him do so? Obeezy doesn't have to go , he and mitt will himself

 

[The ADD]

everybody doesnt think that. the right eats its up, Rush nem feeding that nonsense to their supporters, etc etc.

Real recognize real and romney lookin' real unfamiliar right now. mitt will play himself out the race, why not sit back and let him do so? Obeezy doesn't have to go , he and mitt will himself

If you don't think the general consensus of the media pushed onto the less informed electorate is that Romney won

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I'm not a Republican.

I can see why someone would think you are though. You used to criticize Obama from the left and sound like Glen Greenwald. But recently you've been damn near cheerleading for Romney. Do you just get a kick out of being a contrarian or something?

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

Yeah, but when you claim that the Fed "curiously" does QE in order to help the current President get re-elected as opposed to the more obvious reason, that we were looking at weak ass economic growth for a few quarters, you're kinda entering into conspiracy land. Do you have any evidence for this? It's not like they're going to lose their power if Romney gets elected.

Economic growth has been weak for some time now.

 

[Lord Beasley]

If you don't think the general consensus of the media pushed onto the less informed electorate is that Romney won

im saying i dont think mr. romney won myself. the media can push whatever they like

 

[The ADD]

Nothing to add? Cool

 

[Lord Beasley]

Nothing to add? Cool

read the edit, homebreh.

 

[Broke Wave]

Thanks for proving just how politically naive and generally stupid you are in one post so that it will save me from having to bother replying to you anymore.

Don't be a jackass. The unemployment number is NOT deceptive, it is EXACTLY indicative of what it says it is.

Why is Obama the ONLY president I can ever remember to have the unemployment numbers be put in question? It has been the same metric of litterally decades. While you may find the way its counted "deceptive", don't attribute that to Obama. Unemployment is UNDER 7.8%, PERIOD.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Economic growth has been weak for some time now.

GDP growth was at about 3 in the last quarter of 2011. Then it went down to about 2 I think in the 1st quarter of 2012. Then it dipped lower again to 1.3 I think in quarter 2.

GDP growth dipping for two consecutive quarters to under 2% and gridlock in Washington. The Fed doing another round of QE is perfectly in line with was they've been doing under Bernanke since the Great Recession. You got nothing.

 

[The ADD]

read the edit, homebreh.

You are missing the point. I'm still waiting for explanation of why Obama with basically tank a debate to let Mitt win isn't lunancy.

We all know that these debates aren't there to sway people already on one side or the other like you me and most people in this sub-forum. Knowing that the remaining audience is potential unswayed voters why would anyone choose to make themselves look bad to the point where basically every media outlet says they lost handily?

 

[Lord Beasley]

Obama didn't lose the debate (and Romney didn't win) | Fox News

from fox news? say it isnt so

 

[Street Knowledge]

Don't be a jackass. The unemployment number is NOT deceptive, it is EXACTLY indicative of what it says it is.

Why is Obama the ONLY president I can ever remember to have the unemployment numbers be put in question? It has been the same metric of litterally decades. While you may find the way its counted "deceptive", don't attribute that to Obama. Unemployment is UNDER 7.8%, PERIOD.

That's what I don't get, its the same metric and No one ever questioned

Clinton's
Bush's
Reagan's

Etc unemployment rates while they were president. But now because its obama people call

 

[Broke Wave]

When having a political debate with anybody, my ground rules are this :


You can NOT question peer reviewed academic numbers from respected universities.

You can NOT question numbers from think tanks, right wing or left wing. (Heritage, Brookings, Center for tax policy etc)

And you CERTAINLY cannot question the validity of LEGALLY BINDING official government figures (CBO, department of labour)

ALL these groups have a economic stake in making sure their numbers are totally accurate. Whether their depiction of the numbers is accurate is up to the debate, but the validity of the numbers must not be in question in order to have a civil debate.