Unemployment Rate for September

#51
#51
PaulieWalnuts said:
What is the point of reading a study in another thread when bigpapavol says no one outside of the campaign knows the ins and outs of the plan, and anyone claiming to is lost?

Wouldn't I be reading a bunch of partisan bull****?
Click to expand...

as opposed to what you're likely reading anyway? Why not read them, crunch the numbers and decide for yourself?
 
#52
#52
utvolpj said:
please explain the contradiction

why are you perfectly ok with one side saying it won't work but when the other says it they're lying. Hack much?
Click to expand...

I think the question should be asked of Romney and I think he needs to explain:

what are the specific changes you would make to the tax code to generate the revenue you need to pay for what you propose ?

Then the CBO and others can score it and tell us if it works.


Shouldn't be that hard, really.
 
#54
#54
PaulieWalnuts said:
I know that not a single one of your jokes has made me laugh. Keep pretending to know the ins and outs of the UE formula, and contradicting your buddy utvolpj on the reg.
Click to expand...

we aren't buddies and he has you dead to rights. You're trying to obfuscate the obvious and you look stupid trying. The UE numbers are being politically driven here and it's ridiculous. Your unwillingness to admit anything on this front only serves to highlight your partisan blindness, but let me assure you that your blindness works just like a hiding ostrich does.
 
#55
#55
PaulieWalnuts said:
What is the point of reading a study in another thread when bigpapavol says no one outside of the campaign knows the ins and outs of the plan, and anyone claiming to is lost?

Wouldn't I be reading a bunch of partisan bull****?
Click to expand...

you're acting like you've ever read something other than partisan drivel? Good Lord.
 
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
I think the question should be asked of Romney and I think he needs to explain:

what are the specific changes you would make to the tax code to generate the revenue you need to pay for what you propose ?

Then the CBO and others can score it and tell us if it works.


Shouldn't be that hard, really.
Click to expand...

You have to elect him to know what's in it.
 
#58
#58
The jobs report also revises the number of jobs gained from July and August upward by about 85,000. Plus, the group that calculates the number for jobs and the unemployment numbers are separate. To suggest that the numbers are being cooked by the administration is ridiculous and even shot down by Bush administration officials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#59
#59
Facts still remain that if the workforce remained the same as when Obama took office, the unemployment number is close to 11%.
 
#60
#60
29 years ago on 9/1983 the number was 1.1 million jobs added. This 114k number shows a stark contrast in the difference in recoveries. Obama will never have numbers close to the Reagan recovery
 
#62
#62
In 1972 Nixon had the DoD buy 1 years worth of Toilet paper to goose GDP numbers so if you believe this numbers are pure, I got ocean front property for sale in AZ
 
#63
#63
utvolpj said:
even if that score is based on lies? Interesting
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying Romney should release the details of the changes that he uses to justify his claim that his proposal is revenue neutral. That's his claim, not mine. His claim, not Obama's.

When he does that, we can get a better idea of whether he is telling the truth when he says that his plan is revenue neutral.

Based on what he has thus far disclosed, he's trillions and trillions short.

I am really pretty astounded here that you guys seem so willing to just accept that he has a secret list somewhere and that it will work.

For all your swearing up and down that you guys are nonpartisan and you just want someone fiscally responsible, here's a guy who says "Elect me and trust me, I can cut the rates by a third, I can increase defense spending by $2 trillion, and I can pay for all of it with some changes to the tax code.

But I won't tell you what they are. You'll just have to trust that its a good plan and will work."

Causing me to doubt y'all's claim that you just want a balanced budget and reduced debt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#64
#64
Unimane said:
The jobs report also revises the number of jobs gained from July and August upward by about 85,000. Plus, the group that calculates the number for jobs and the unemployment numbers are separate. To suggest that the numbers are being cooked by the administration is ridiculous and even shot down by Bush administration officials.
Click to expand...

shot down? by other political staffers?

astonishing the number of part time adds that the numbers actually reflect. Shoot them any way you would like and there's still no doubt these are politically driven.
 
#65
#65
you still miss the point. Why do you want the CBO to score it for you when it was shown with Obamacare (which you support) that the numbers were a lie anyways?
 
#66
#66
utvolpj said:
you still miss the point. Why do you want the CBO to score it for you when it was shown with Obamacare (which you support) that the numbers were a lie anyways?
Click to expand...


No, you keep dodging the point, which is that Romney won't release the details of this massive plan and overhaul to our tax system, with a total of about $8 trillion in changes.

Again, you all claim that this is your issue, but you just ignore his refusal to disclose the details.

Its quite troubling.
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
No, you keep dodging the point, which is that Romney won't release the details of this massive plan and overhaul to our tax system, with a total of about $8 trillion in changes.

Again, you all claim that this is your issue, but you just ignore his refusal to disclose the details.

Its quite troubling.
Click to expand...

Would that be comparable to a HC bill we had to pass to find out all the good stuff that was in it?
 
#68
#68
lawgator1 said:
No, you keep dodging the point, which is that Romney won't release the details of this massive plan and overhaul to our tax system, with a total of about $8 trillion in changes.

Again, you all claim that this is your issue, but you just ignore his refusal to disclose the details.

Its quite troubling.
Click to expand...

You have been posting this question for 2 days and you have yet to get an answer. I would give up, but I applaud your persistence.
 
#69
#69
BeecherVol said:
Would that be comparable to a HC bill we had to pass to find out all the good stuff that was in it?
Click to expand...

Ok, I accept your criticism.

Returning to the issue ....

Are you not bothered by Romney's refusal to explain his $8 trillion spending spree?
 
#70
#70
114,000 jobs added and the number of employed people goes up 873,000. Seems legit.
 
#71
#71
lawgator1 said:
Returning to the issue ....

Are you not bothered by Romney's refusal to explain his $8 trillion spending spree?
Click to expand...

C'mon you can call for "straight answers" when you start at $8 trillion which is a knowingly wrong.

I don't think his plan can get to complete revenue neutrality at his specified rate cuts. So what do I expect he would do?

1) modify the plan some once he sees what will go through Congress

2) end up with something that adds to the deficit some.

Is that 8T? No way you know it's not but you trot it out. Is that 5T? Same comment.
Is it any more deficit inducing than what Obama is proposing? I don't see how.

As for clarity - Obama hasn't released his details either regarding deduction closings (save O&G "subsidies"; corp jets and the mystery deduction for moving offshore). Yet he tells us he'll lower corporate rates (how much?) and differentially so for different industries (which and how much). How are you scoring Obama's plan?
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
Ok, I accept your criticism.

Returning to the issue ....

Are you not bothered by Romney's refusal to explain his $8 trillion spending spree?
Click to expand...
When its turkey time it will matter.

If you put a lot of stock in either ones numbers your pretty naive. The only difference is Obama passed his racket.
 
#73
#73
2012-10-04T003715Z_1102878706_GM1E8A40NWF02_RTRMADP_3_USA-CAMPAIGN.JPG
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top