Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by Crude, Mar 1, 2010.
American Thinker Blog: Graph of the Day for October 23, 2009
This is how i have seen it work like, the Dem's increase taxes on big business, and republicans want as little tax as possible. So to ensure big business is netting the same amount of profit they cut jobs so the analyst are like oh hey they are a stable company earning about they same amount a year, but really they are just compensating for taxes by firing people. Financial analysts are really a lot to blame for the current economic situation as well as a presidency that doesn't know jack shit about the Stock market and how to properly regulate them, like ghost shares are the easiest way to Fk a companies stock this is a big problem.
but when it comes down to it Obama did inherit a war debt so its not fair calling it all his fault, Bushes administration also helped in deregulating the financial system. my conclusion is it was a joint effort between the guy that got elected 2 times and someone who has no clue wtf they are doing.
It's a graph, what is the point you are trying to illustrate?
That the Dems were in power at the time three terrible things happened; Things that seem to have helped to cause unemployment (Gulf War pt 1, 9/11-Gulf War the Sequel, financial meltdown)?
That the Reps hand over to the Dems messes then say "You caused it!"?
That the Reps lower unemployment?
Are you drawing a conclusion or a correlation or just a "Hey Look!"?
And do you have all the mitigating circumstances covered?
You can't really tell much from that graph.
he is right
Could very easily portray that the Reps receive an somewhat healthy economy that the Dems created then eff it up, the the Dems get back in control to fix it and the Reps eff it up again. Since there is a lag in the amount of time it takes for the changes to have an effect, it just looks like the Reps are the ones taking care of things.
I'm not saying that's a fact, just saying that graph can be perceived in different ways.
look at Clintons term, unemployment went down constantly. It also looks like it spiked when Bush took office.
That's some dangerous logic, it works both ways.
So are you going to elect Mr. no clue wtf they are doing a second time?
Funny how political topics pull in the lurkers. I'm not saying anything, I'm trying to get people to think. It stands to reason that Americans can't be as dumb as they have been acting. So by getting them to think I feel that logic and reasoning will once again take root and solve some of the issues we are facing these days. It's a graph...that's all. btw I'm not republican.
Ha... Religion will do that too! And never underestimate the depth of human stupidity. I think that most, or rather the vast majority of people often do not use logic or reason, and they never have. So that's not going to help.
We're dumb animals and most people still "think" with their superstitions and biases instead of their heads. A thought for them is "Yeah, what he said"; they never have an original thought at all. I don't know who said it first, but they're like "sheeple."
Anyway, I was assuming you posted it to start a debate, I was just trying to bring out that the graph showed nothing... or it showed anything, really. You can lie anyway you want with statistics, and we all do it.
I assume you want us to think about what influences unemployment. I'd say fear. Fear in that employers react with a knee jerk "Yikes!" reaction and the first thing to go in belt-tightening ins people. Which makes sense as they are the largest cost in overhead for a company.
And short sightedness in that they only look at how to save a buck tomorrow by dumping people, and not how to streamline and increase efficiency with the resources (I hate calling people resources) they have. Though we all know people we'd jettison the moment the bottom-line drops. And maybe they should be jettisoned. What does not help you can hurt you, and people not pulling their weight or people not willing to learn or change their ways for the better perhaps should be allowed to seek employment elsewhere......
And despair or ennui. Person X can't find a job after 8 months so they stop looking, after all the government will pay them. Perhaps instead of extending unemployment benefits we should have removed some of them to "stimulate" people to find jobs. But would they?
I've never owned a company nor been a manager that had to cut budget, but I do think that people can do more when asked to, especially when they have to help their company so that they keep their jobs. I said CAN not WILL.
No you aren't, I can tell from your avatar. You've already picked a side and have left thinking far behind, you are the last person who wants people to think for themselves.
Just because I oppose the president doesn't mean I stand for anyone. You aren't doing your kind any favors with passive aggressive posts like these.
Be careful with stuff like this. Our current administration has already grown our deficit by more then all these guys combined and has nothing to show for it. Here's something a little more up to date.
This post makes me LOL. Seriously. The Dems love to blame Reps for THEIR mistakes. The "war spending" isn't any parties fault. Would you rather we let terrorists walk all over us? I think its funny unemployment rates CONSISTENTLY rise when a dem pres is in office.
u need to apply for unemployment in the state of the job. since u are moving out of state u may not qualify. the state u are moving to probably will not pay u since u have not paid in to their systems.
Unemployment is a state program.
may i suggest a reading of '48 days to work u love' d.miller . a good book for going forward and plenty of fresh reference material.
the other one is 'total money make over' d.ramsey helps our folks retain their cash.
spending less and getting more value from their paychecks.
our associates have a mandatory read of the books.
Unless it's not an act.
Really? There wouldn't have been a war with Iraq if Bush and Cheney had been honest with the American people. That war was a war of convenience, a war waged to show the American people how "tough" the administration was and to divert attention away from the fact that Bush and Cheney were incapable of nailing al Qaeda or Osama.
Riiight. I hope we never get invaded. You'll be the first to fall.
What would lead you to that conclusion? The fact that I, along with tens of millons of other intelligent, well-educated and well-informed Americans believe Cheney and Bush deceived us into that war with Iraq?
You also seem to be assuming I have no firearms or don't know how to use them. You'd be...wrong.
Your comments and their lack of sense/logic make me LOL. Really.
Are you denying that "tens of millions of other intelligent, well-educated and well-informed Americans believe Cheney and Bush deceived us into that war with Iraq?"
Was it deception when america was crying for blood after the twin towers got hit?
We would have been better served if the Bush Admin hadn't lied us into a way against Iraq, and had concentrated on finding the 9-11 planners/perps. Instead, because of the Bush Admin's inability to find them, it tried to satiate the thirst for revenge by going after Iraq, a country that had virtually nothing to do with the al Qaeda attacks.
That's war, not way, of course.