Politics

[connor_in]

Don't tell me you are buying into the "Job Truthism" conspiracy?

Why would he do that when...

U-6 Unemployment is STILL at 14.7%

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[jason_h537]

Why would he do that when...

U-6 Unemployment is STILL at 14.7%

U6 counts part time jobs Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization.

I just find it convenient that the GOP comes up with a conspiracy theory every time they get bad news. Liberal media, polls are skewed, books are cooked, voter fraud, birth certificate.


*** side nite: turn off the signature on your phone. It reminds me of The Simpsons episode where Lisa learns to tapa, tapa, tapa.

 

[GoIrish41]

Shouldn't we as Americans be happy that the unemployment numbers are going down? I don't get all of the negativity surrounding this good news.

 

[PraetorianND]

Shouldn't we as Americans be happy that the unemployment numbers are going down? I don't get all of the negativity surrounding this good news.

The answer to that question is yes, unless you fear that the news will help your candidate's opposition. Or you can be of the belief that it's good but not good enough. Either way it's probably politically/election motivated which will make you jaded no matter what the news is.

 

[Quinntastic]

I haven't complained about that because it hadn't been brought up. But I'll tell you this, NO ONE at my school has federal student aid. My university does not take any state or federal aid.

Yours will be an education wasted because you aren't going into it with an open mind that you may actually learn something that goes against your already pre-conceived opinions of how the world should work. You will have learned facts, but you will have learned nothing about the importance of compassion and empathy towards others which means a lot more. The "real" world will eat you alive with your pompous attitude. Learn some humility.

I was going to write a very long post about how little I think of you. But then I realized you weren't even worth the time it would take me to type it all out. And I type fast.

 

[PraetorianND]

I haven't complained about that because it hadn't been brought up. But I'll tell you this, NO ONE at my school has federal student aid. My university does not take any state or federal aid. My parents worked their asses off to put my sister and I through the school of our choice. And guess what, I'll be doing the same for my kids one day.

What school do you go to? I have a feeling you are incorrect about your school not accepting federal aid.

Tuition expenses are increasing by 6% per year so you better start saving now.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Yours will be an education wasted because you aren't going into it with an open mind that you may actually learn something that goes against your already pre-conceived opinions of how the world should work. You will have learned facts, but you will have learned nothing about the importance of compassion and empathy towards others which means a lot more. The "real" world will eat you alive with your pompous attitude. Learn some humility.

I was going to write a very long post about how little I think of you. But then I realized you weren't even worth the time it would take me to type it all out. And I type fast.

Mine is an education I'm thankful for, and an education that opens numerous doors for me. Yes I do have an idea of how the world 'should' work, but also a realization of how the world 'does' work. I have a compassion for people who are truly struggling who need assistance, which is why I believe in charity. I am a strong christian and believe that it is our duty to help those in need, VOLUNTARILY, not forced by government.

Dude, you know nothing about me. This is a freaking internet forum, get off your high horse. If you want to bring on personal attacks, go right ahead. But at the end of the day I have my life and you have yours, and I LOVE my life.

 

[PraetorianND]

Mine is an education I'm thankful for, and an education that opens numerous doors for me. Yes I do have an idea of how the world 'should' work, but also a realization of how the world 'does' work. I have a compassion for people who are truly struggling who need assistance, which is why I believe in charity. I am a strong christian and believe that it is our duty to help those in need, VOLUNTARILY, not forced by government.

Dude, you know nothing about me. This is a freaking internet forum, get off your high horse. If you want to bring on personal attacks, go right ahead. But at the end of the day I have my life and you have yours, and I LOVE my life.

How do you feel about tithing?

 

[PraetorianND]

Hillsdale College, I am not incorrect.

After reading up on Hillsdale I commend them for sticking to their principles.

Statement of Loan Policy - Due to our independence from Government assistance, federal loans are not made available to Hillsdale College students. Some students may qualify for institutional loans. Students are permitted to pursue any privately funded student loan as long as the loan amount is within institutional budgetary limits. However, since many lenders will not process student loans for students attending an institution without a federal school code, we provide information on quality alternative lenders with whom we have an established relationship. Hillsdale College students are not limited to these lenders when seeking an outside loan.

The Hillsdale College Office of Student Financial Aid is aware of predatory lending practices by some such lenders. Because many deceptive marketing tactics are not illegal in the world of alternative student loans, parents and students are cautioned to be wary of unsolicited offers from any outside loan provider and are advised to read and understand the terms and conditions of any loan they may be considering.

Banks are evil.

 

[PraetorianND]

It is part of Christian duty and rightfully so. Our church has various funds specifically for people in need (rent, car payment, groceries, etc). Forced charity is no charity at all. Donating your time and money if able are things that should be important to every one.

Do they have funds that include 40k a year scholarships + housing + living + books + fees for kids who want to go to Notre Dame? Or should they just not be able to go?

 

[North Buffalo Irish]

From the thread about the Romney t-shirt... I was wondering what a "conservative teacher" is? Someone used that phrase. Never heard of it, myself.

 

[PraetorianND]

Seriously? Sounds like your beef is with Notre Dame. Want to hear the hard truth? Higher education is not a right. Going to a prestigious school is not a right. There are always going to be those with more, and those with less.

Do you think it is right for those with more to be punished because they have more?

1. I was using ND as example to get you thinking about something that we all understand. There are literally hundreds maybe thousands of universities in this country that cost 40k a year.

2. That is why in America we try to give people the chance to succeed and get ahead. We do not have a caste system in America. Imagine if those who wanted to be doctors couldn't get loans to go to medical school, or nurses loans to go to nursing school, or any of the many necessary professions that require a higher education. Two-thirds of college students get student aid (Two-Thirds of Students Get Financial Aid, Federal Report Says - News - The Chronicle of Higher Education)

3. How exactly are the rich being punished by the government giving out student loans? You realize that the rich actually benefit from this? The interest rates the government charges banks to loan them money to then turn around and give to students is lower than what they are charging students, the banks (rich) actually make money from federal student loans.

You've been incredibly lucky to have your college paid for. I envy you. I grew up with a single mom (dad passed away) raising two sons in the bay area in San Francisco which is one of the most expensive areas in the country. The only house she could afford (which she bought with a federally backed mortgage) was 2 hours away from the city which she commuted to on public transportation BART (partially federally funded). That's a four hour commute. Thank God I was able to take out student loans to attend Notre Dame law school and give myself the ability to get a great job so that I can now save for my own son's college education thus breaking a cycle that would have existed without the various forms of government funds listed above. I will gladly pay may taxes and give another kid the opportunity (through federal loans) to get out of a situation that was not of their own creation and follow their dreams.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Good story.

I don't mind student loans per se, I would just like to see the feds also do something to encourage tuition cuts.

If we can pass federal legislation mandating that health insurers only pay X% on admin, I'm sure we could do something in the same mold with colleges.

 

[Quinntastic]

Mine is an education I'm thankful for, and an education that opens numerous doors for me. Yes I do have an idea of how the world 'should' work, but also a realization of how the world 'does' work. I have a compassion for people who are truly struggling who need assistance, which is why I believe in charity. I am a strong christian and believe that it is our duty to help those in need, VOLUNTARILY, not forced by government.

Dude, you know nothing about me. This is a freaking internet forum, get off your high horse. If you want to bring on personal attacks, go right ahead. But at the end of the day I have my life and you have yours, and I LOVE my life.

Also - that would be "lady, you know nothing about me". And I'm not the one spouting my mouth off like I wrote the book on economics, Mr. High Horse.

And I should've known you went to Hillsdale. Yuck.

 

[DSully1995]

*cough* canadian tuition 6000$*cough*

 

[Buster Bluth]

And I'm not the one spouting my mouth off like I wrote the book on economics

If we're going to turn this thread into an economics discussion, I'm throwing this into the conversation:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4MArzSSF7WU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3p1sW9aIQ-Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-pCfJOj8QSo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Solid knowledge here.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

And I should've known you went to Hillsdale. Yuck.

Then you should extremely happy that NONE of your tax dollars are on our campus.

I know that we are.


It is amazing that a school can grow, and be completely independent of government, isn't it!

 

[Rhode Irish]

A lot of you guys have confused "indoctrination" for "education." We've all had brilliant professors and we've all sought support for our intuition. I get the sense that there are some holes in the 'human experience' of a few of the posters here.

 

[Buster Bluth]

A lot of you guys have confused "indoctrination" for "education."

What an insolent thing to say.

 

[Rhode Irish]

What an insolent thing to say.

Yeah, that or perceptive. You don't know what you don't know, and your arrogance suggests that you believe you are the only person on this board to have attended an economics class.

 

[irish1958]

The republicans better be careful about the unemployment numbers
See: Where can I find the unemployment rate for previous years?
The President and the Congress set the budget for the next year, that is, the year they leave office. So any reasonable person will blame them for the result of that year, since the incoming President and Congress have no input or vote on that budget.
With that in mind, let us consider what has happened in the past quarter of a century to the unemployment rate at the start of their term and the end:

Bush One unemployment rates 1989 to 1993
1989. 5.3
1993. 6.9
Average. 6.3
%Change: INCREASE 31%

Clinton. 1994 to 2001
1994. 6.1
2001. 4.7
Average. 4.9
%Change: DECREASE 23%

Bush Two. 2002 to 2009
2002. 5.8
2009. 9.3
Average. 5.8
%Change: INCREASE 60%

Obama 2010 to present
2010. 9.6
2012. 7.8
Average. 8.8
%Change: DECREASE 19%

When one considers that the Bush Recession's unemployment percentage was projected to INCREASE to 15% by the end of 2012, Obama's policies, (in spite of the massive resistance of Congress in the past two years, and Mr. McConnell's stated legislative goal of complete opposition to and total lack of cooperation with Mr. Oboma with the goal of causing his defeat) have apparently caused a DECREASE of 42%
Hardly a failed policy, in my opinion. I must confess that as a student at ND, I waisted my time with biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics. I never had the advantage of the social sciences including Economics, so my interpretation of the data is probably flawed.

I also fail to see how Mr. Romney's fondness, as a CEO, of firing people will contribute to a policy, as this country's CEO, to decrease the unemployment.
Perhaps those versed in Economics can enlighten me.

All typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors are the shared responsibility of myself and Mr. Jack Daniels.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What an insolent thing to say.

You've belittled me a few times and other people a number of times. But, hey, it's the internet.

 

[DSully1995]

You've belittled me a few times and other people a number of times. But, hey, it's the internet.

You tell him.

EDIT: patience please will i figure this stuff out, boom got it

 

[phgreek]

The republicans better be careful about the unemployment numbers
See: Where can I find the unemployment rate for previous years?
The President and the Congress set the budget for the next year, that is, the year they leave office. So any reasonable person will blame them for the result of that year, since the incoming President and Congress have no input or vote on that budget.
With that in mind, let us consider what has happened in the past quarter of a century to the unemployment rate at the start of their term and the end:

Bush One unemployment rates 1989 to 1993
1989. 5.3
1993. 6.9
Average. 6.3
%Change: INCREASE 31%

Clinton. 1994 to 2001
1994. 6.1
2001. 4.7
Average. 4.9
%Change: DECREASE 23%

Bush Two. 2002 to 2009
2002. 5.8
2009. 9.3
Average. 5.8
%Change: INCREASE 60%

Obama 2010 to present
2010. 9.6
2012. 7.8
Average. 8.8
%Change: DECREASE 19%

When one considers that the Bush Recession's unemployment percentage was projected to INCREASE to 15% by the end of 2012, Obama's policies, (in spite of the massive resistance of Congress in the past two years, and Mr. McConnell's stated legislative goal of complete opposition to and total lack of cooperation with Mr. Oboma with the goal of causing his defeat) have apparently caused a DECREASE of 42%
Hardly a failed policy, in my opinion. I must confess that as a student at ND, I waisted my time with biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics. I never had the advantage of the social sciences including Economics, so my interpretation of the data is probably flawed.

I also fail to see how Mr. Romney's fondness, as a CEO, of firing people will contribute to a policy, as this country's CEO, to decrease the unemployment.
Perhaps those versed in Economics can enlighten me.

All typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors are the shared responsibility of myself and Mr. Jack Daniels.

IMHO published unemployment %, as they are "crafted" (both parties do it...not a political statement) alone ... toilet paper. I suspect you already know that...

honestly, what are the %s communicating if part time workers count in full on the plus side, and people who just quit looking don't count at all on the minus side...anyway, as an economic indicator...its not usefull w/o other information. So what you seem to be saying is Obama > Bush based on the unemployment numbers so Rs should back off...uhm, no. I think they'll finally quit being Lazy and pointing to the unemployment numbers and start explaining **** people actually feel...Romney did some of it in the debate...


...how many people have full time jobs right now...what do they make...whats that money buy...what does gas cost...

how does BO stack up all the way back to Carter based on those factors...

YUP I believe its just that simple...those things are it, and it seemed like, as I said, Romney already started beating that drum...

BTW...if BO does the pipeline from Canada, then he'd have won in a record setting landslide...then it doesn't matter what others did or didn't do now does it?

Its convenient to blame partisans for failure, but BO did plenty of his own, and shunned THE opportunity. If he loses it will be over the economy, and he had opportunities to do some things in the energy realm that would have saved his bacon, so if he loses its on him.

Now...Mr. Obama may have the upper hand, but he pulls another debate performance like the last, and I think he's in trouble.

Really...you'd play the "Fire People" hack job over the 47% thing he actually said in context...at least take the low hanging fruit ....sheesh!

 

[Quinntastic]

Then you should extremely happy that NONE of your tax dollars are on our campus.

I know that we are.


It is amazing that a school can grow, and be completely independent of government, isn't it!

Without plunging oneself into debt/bankruptcy? Yes...

 

[connor_in]

Yeah, that or perceptive. You don't know what you don't know, and your arrogance suggests that you believe you are the only person on this board to have attended an economics class.

Pot...kettle...the same is true for those posting from the left side of the political spectrum as well

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[irish1958]

IMHO published unemployment %, as they are "crafted" (both parties do it...not a political statement) alone ... toilet paper. I suspect you already know that...

honestly, what are the %s communicating if part time workers count in full on the plus side, and people who just quit looking don't count at all on the minus side...anyway, as an economic indicator...its not usefull w/o other information. So what you seem to be saying is Obama > Bush based on the unemployment numbers so Rs should back off...uhm, no. I think they'll finally quit being Lazy and pointing to the unemployment numbers and start explaining **** people actually feel...Romney did some of it in the debate...


...how many people have full time jobs right now...what do they make...whats that money buy...what does gas cost...

how does BO stack up all the way back to Carter based on those factors...

YUP I believe its just that simple...those things are it, and it seemed like, as I said, Romney already started beating that drum...

BTW...if BO does the pipeline from Canada, then he'd have won in a record setting landslide...then it doesn't matter what others did or didn't do now does it?

Its convenient to blame partisans for failure, but BO did plenty of his own, and shunned THE opportunity. If he loses it will be over the economy, and he had opportunities to do some things in the energy realm that would have saved his bacon, so if he loses its on him.

Now...Mr. Obama may have the upper hand, but he pulls another debate performance like the last, and I think he's in trouble.

Really...you'd play the "Fire People" hack job over the 47% thing he actually said in context...at least take the low hanging fruit ....sheesh!

Of course, you are right in most of your observations and at the same time wrong; or, perhaps, a better word would be incomplete due to the confirmatory bias.
For example, consider the pipeline. What person in his right mind would oppose a project which would decrease energy costs, lower the cost of gasoline and heating oil and add thousands of new jobs to an ailing economy, thereby insuring his re-election?
What could be his motive for such an obvious folly? Perhaps he really is stupid and his graduation from Harvard and his facility position at that city college in Chicago is really due to affermative action and he really is just a dumb ******! As I have heard him called many times.
His concern for the protection of one of America's most important aquifer is, of course, groundless; especially considering the pristine record of the oil industry in Alaska, Spain, Europe, and our Gulf Of Mexico, just to name a few places where their concern for the environment is oblivious. Also, consider the plight of the "dependent 47%" who have to light their well water to burn off the natural gas from fracking before they can drink it. Well, bottled water is probably better for them anyhow.
Election by slogans, focus groups and 30 second commercials might not be what the"founding Fathers" had in mind when they drafted the Constitution of the United States. We would be a lot better off if we restricted the vote to land owners only as Mr. Jefferson suggested and counted the vote of people of color as 3/5 of a white person as the representatives from South Carolina, Georgia and a few other Christian-Bible States insisted upon. This has the added advantage of reducing the pernicious influence of those indolent and selfish 47%.

 

[irish1958]

While I am at it, I have a complaint about the president's poll in this thread. I am from Chicago and our civic duty there is to vote early and often. I have voted early but the stupid poll will not let me vote any more times.
This us unfair and the moderators should look into the motives of those conducting the poll.

 

[autry_denson]

Of course, you are right in most of your observations and at the same time wrong; or, perhaps, a better word would be incomplete due to the confirmatory bias.

Glad you made this point. This thread is dominated by confirmation bias. All political discussion is dominated by confirmation bias. It is why political discussion is so rarely productive and so frequently annoying. It is why I try (often unsuccessfully) to avoid opening this thread up and why I'm always annoyed at myself when I succumb.

If we all started by trying to falsify or at least question our own assumptions rather than others' assumptions we'd be a lot better off and this thread might not so consistently veer off into angry, misinformed or simplistic rants.

 

[Rizzophil]

Obama got exposed on Wednesday because liberals don't have economically sound policies.

If you like high gas prices, $4000 increased in taxes, economic stability through part time job growth, 25mil people out of work, $800 billion cut from Medicare, increased food prices, and inflation because we are buying our own debt, vote for Obama.

His attacks are so off the wall that more and more people are seeking the truth. He is in deep trouble in November.