meazza Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 How much Tom?? Let's use government estimates. 5 MILLION JOBS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 The fight over default is A FIGHT OVER THE “NEW NORMAL.” “Notwithstanding huge changes over time in economic, social, and political conditions, growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has fluctuated fairly closely around an average annual rate of approximately 2 percent. Looking ahead, however, there are strong reasons for doubting that this historic norm can be maintained. . . . The Republican Party may be frustrated by its inability to halt the growth of the welfare state. But congressional Democrats will probably soon find themselves equally frustrated by their inability to get voters to pay for it.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Let's use government estimates. 5 MILLION JOBS. I think he was referring to how much in taxes not jobs so I think the government estimate is: $17,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Keep in mind this is just a government estimate and really means nothing to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 17, 2013 Author Share Posted October 17, 2013 I think he was referring to how much in taxes not jobs so I think the government estimate is: $17,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Keep in mind this is just a government estimate and really means nothing to them. To you, unless it supports some Conservative argument, it means nothing. So you don't care the government wasted money for nothing? I thought you hated that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 To you, unless it supports some Conservative argument, it means nothing. So you don't care the government wasted money for nothing? I thought you hated that? But it's not a waste when the government spends money! It creates jobs! Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 how bout this? did the recent shutdown have a negative, positive or no effect on perception of the republicans by the electorate, overall? will you all ever learn? Who cares about the electorate's perception of the Repubs right now? As I've been telling you, and as even gatorman acknowledged, in a year's time, this will be a distant memory. But Barry's numbers will continue to sink, as will the numbers for Congress as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 With the Restoration of Non-Essential Government Services, Everything Is Now Fixed And We Can All Relax Isn’t it wonderful? Now we can keep going into more and more debt! Maybe the best thing about the shutdown is that the press will now focus like a laser on the shortcomings of ObamaCare. See, Dave Weigel had explained to all of us that, yes, it was crazy for the press to ask zero questions of Obama, during an hour-plus press conference, about the disastrous rollout. But that was Republicans’ fault, because “shutdown”! (That’s Big Media’s term for the slowdown that just ended.) So now, the slowdown is over, and we have non-essential goverment services back, so undoubtably, Weigel will demand another press conference with Obama where covering the rollout is Job Number One. Like quality at Ford. (Come to think of it, a lot like quality at Ford.) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Who cares about the electorate's perception of the Repubs right now? As I've been telling you, and as even gatorman acknowledged, in a year's time, this will be a distant memory. But Barry's numbers will continue to sink, as will the numbers for Congress as a whole. That might even matter, if he were to run for a third term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 That might even matter, if he were to run for a third term. exactly. something that he's well aware of and very likely influenced his recent actions a great deal. and doc, surprise, surprise, surprise...we once again fundamentally disagree but in this unlike in so many other arguments here, there will be an objective measure of correct and incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 That might even matter, if he were to run for a third term. It's getting back to what I said earlier, i.e. Barry's unpopularity pulling down the Dems, a la Dubya pulling down the Repubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 To you, unless it supports some Conservative argument, it means nothing. So you don't care the government wasted money for nothing? I thought you hated that? I don't hate it I abhor it. What's your point? Again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) exactly. something that he's well aware of and very likely influenced his recent actions a great deal. Good thing nobody wants to repeal the 22nd amendment and let Obama run for a third term. and doc, surprise, surprise, surprise...we once again fundamentally disagree but in this unlike in so many other arguments here, there will be an objective measure of correct and incorrect. You're definition of "objective" is !@#$ed for a cocked hat. Whatever the measure of the ACA, it will NEVER be objective. Hell, if we could define an objective measure of health care, we wouldn't have such a !@#$ed-up law to begin with. It's getting back to what I said earlier, i.e. Barry's unpopularity pulling down the Dems, a la Dubya pulling down the Repubs. I think the most likely backlash is "Between a community organizier and teabaggers, it's time to put professionals who know how to lead and govern back in the White House. Hillary Clinton '16!" I'll even put $5 on it: Hillary runs on "Maintain the course we're on, but as an experienced politician I can rein in Congress." And wins. Edit: because people are idiots. Edited October 17, 2013 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Who cares about the electorate's perception of the Repubs right now? As I've been telling you, and as even gatorman acknowledged, in a year's time, this will be a distant memory. But Barry's numbers will continue to sink, as will the numbers for Congress as a whole. I'd agree if we didn't do this dog and pony show every few months.... the fact that we do keeps this fresh in people's minds.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I'd agree if we didn't do this dog and pony show every few months.... the fact that we do keeps this fresh in people's minds.... and that's the way they want it. otherwise, the senate would actually do their job and pass an annual budget. that's the only reason we have all these continuing resolutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I'd agree if we didn't do this dog and pony show every few months.... the fact that we do keeps this fresh in people's minds.... Both sides want it that way right now, because they each think it's giving them an advantage in the mid-terms. Too bad for the Republicans that they're idiots - it's hurting them far more than the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Good thing nobody wants to repeal the 22nd amendment and let Obama run for a third term. You're definition of "objective" is !@#$ed for a cocked hat. Whatever the measure of the ACA, it will NEVER be objective. Hell, if we could define an objective measure of health care, we wouldn't have such a !@#$ed-up law to begin with. I think the most likely backlash is "Between a community organizier and teabaggers, it's time to put professionals who know how to lead and govern back in the White House. Hillary Clinton '16!" I'll even put $5 on it: Hillary runs on "Maintain the course we're on, but as an experienced politician I can rein in Congress." And wins. Edit: because people are idiots. i was speaking of election results re objective measures. but for health care i'd point to infant mortality, life expectency, hospital readmission rates etc. the WHO has a scoring system in place already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 i was speaking of election results re objective measures. "But Al Gore won the popular vote!" Sure, objective. but for health care i'd point to infant mortality, life expectency, hospital readmission rates etc. the WHO has a scoring system in place already. I'll have to read the ACA again, I'm a bit hazy on the sections that increased life expectancy and lowered infant mortality rates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 That might even matter, if he were to run for a third term. It matters because not only is his ideology increasingly seen as embarrassingly flawed and unworkable, but much like GW's last-term poll drop, people will ultimately reverse course, look at the left and realize "Okay, let's not elect another thin-skinned child with no executive experience to run the country, mmmmkay?" Obama IS the face of the progressive left, and while the right is getting hammered, the right doesn't run the country. Obama's numbers will continue to drop for the next three years, and that's bad for the birdog/gatorman/conners of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 It matters because not only is his ideology increasingly seen as embarrassingly flawed and unworkable, but much like GW's last-term poll drop, people will ultimately reverse course, look at the left and realize "Okay, let's not elect another thin-skinned child with no executive experience to run the country, mmmmkay?" Obama IS the face of the progressive left, and while the right is getting hammered, the right doesn't run the country. You're assuming THAT matters. You all seem to forget that reality is far less relevant than the coverage of it. Just ask Candy Crowley. Or Mitt Romney's horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 You're assuming THAT matters. You all seem to forget that reality is far less relevant than the coverage of it. Just ask Candy Crowley. Or Mitt Romney's horse. The media will turn on him in the end. Incompetence this deep can not be ignored. Look at Ron Fournier's piece today here. A devout Obamabot unable to sit still any longer. The talking heads consider themselves very smart...too smart to pretend any more than Barack Obama is smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts