Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: "So Be It"

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,750
    Post Thanks / Like

    "So Be It"

    Rep. Boehner:

    [QUOTE]"Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We're broke! It's time for us to get serious about how we're spending the nation's money."[/QUOTE]

    The response I've heard thus far seems to be foccussed on the "So be it" portion of the quote only.

    During these hard economic times, how do you feel about the Fed. Govt. adding 200,000 jobs?

    And what part of the quote do you most valid to discuss? the added 200,000 jobs? The deficit (we're broke)? Or the apparent lack of sympathy for those he may make unemployed, whose Govt. jobs have been added since the economic downturn?

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    those numbers are wrong. fg has added just over 50k not 200k

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;3960566]those numbers are wrong. fg has added just over 50k not 200k[/QUOTE]

    Boehner certainly didn't cite his source, but he should be in a position to know (one would think).

    Can you cite yours?

    And the larger question, is the number of jabs added during the "Great Recession" the relevant issue? Or is the relevant issue that in tightening the Federal Budget, some Govt. Worker layoffs would be obviously a part the issue?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3960574]Boehner certainly didn't cite his source, but he should be in a position to know (one would think).

    Can you cite yours?

    And the larger question, is the number of jabs added during the "Great Recession" the relevant issue? Or is the relevant issue that in tightening the Federal Budget, some Govt. Worker layoffs would be obviously a part the issue?[/QUOTE]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics

    [IMG]http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/art-boehner-debunked.jpg[/imG]

    cue... Rachel Maddow.. blahblahblah
    Last edited by Tyler Durden; 02-16-2011 at 01:10 PM.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    By far the most meaningful part of the quote is "It's time for us to get serious about how we're spending the nation's money", yet it will become the most overlooked because the shouting heads are focusing on everything but that.

    Evidence: this thread so far. Doesn't matter if it's 5 jobs or a million jobs. We shouldn't be adding jobs to an already oversized federal government.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;3960586]Bureau of Labor Statistics

    [IMG]http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/art-boehner-debunked.jpg[/imG]

    cue... Rachel Maddow.. blahblahblah[/QUOTE]

    Well, in fairness the "source" here is indeed Maddow, claiming her source is the BLS, but not supplying links or other sources herself. Not much different the Boehner tbh, it's a claim without backup unless the actual source is provided. Simply saying "the BLS says so" is naming the source, not actually providing the source.

    With that said, Maddow could be 100% right. Just hard to say without the actual source itself. My brief look at the BLS certainly didn't show this data being easy to find on their site, but it was a very brief check.

    It should also be pointed out that simply taking Jobs on X, and Jobs on Y, is not an accurate reference to jobs created. For example:

    I create 200 jobs. But I cut (or lose through retirement and don't fill) 150 jobs. On the face (as in your source) I would have created only 50 jobs. But in fact, I created 200, but I also cut/lost/otherwise removed 150, a fact neither considered nor included in the source's X-Y calculation.

    It's a way numbers can be abused, depending on the message one is trying to promote. Under the example above, the Job Creator could boast about creating 200 new jobs, while also boasting of increasing the size of Govt. by only 50 jobs. Both are true, depending on how you're analyzing teh data.

    In effect, what Maddows BLS source is telling you is the Net Change in Federal Jobs between the dats in question, not how many jobs were "created". Worse, good luck defining "created" and getting an (R) and (D) to agree on it.;)
    Last edited by Warfish; 02-16-2011 at 01:25 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3960596]Well, in fairness the "source" here is indeed Maddow, claiming her source is the BLS, but not supplying links or other sources herself. Not much different the Boehner tbh, it's a claim without backup unless the actual source is provided. Simply saying "the BLS says so" is naming the source, not actually providing the source.

    With that said, Maddow could be 100% right. Just hard to say without the actual source itself. My brief look at the BLS certainly didn't show this data being easy to find on their site, but it was a very brief check.

    It should also be pointed out that simply taking Jobs on X, and Jobs on Y, is not an accurate reference to jobs created. For example:

    I create 200 jobs. But I cut (or lose through retirement and don't fill) 150 jobs. On the face (as in your source) I would have created only 50 jobs. But in fact, I created 200, but I also cut/lost/otherwise removed 150, a fact neither considered nor included in the source's X-Y calculation.

    It's a way numbers can be abused, depending on the message one is trying to promote. Under the example above, the Job Creator could boast about creating 200 new jobs, while also boasting of increasing the size of Govt. by only 50 jobs. Both are true, depending on how you're analyzing teh data.

    In effect, what Maddows BLS source is telling you is the Net Change in Federal Jobs between the dats in question, not how many jobs were "created". Worse, good luck defining "created" and getting an (R) and (D) to agree on it.;)[/QUOTE]



    [url]http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/15/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-200000-new-federal-jobs-have-spr/[/url]

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;3960609][url]http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/15/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-200000-new-federal-jobs-have-spr/[/url][/QUOTE]

    Perfect example of what I meant above, thank you.

    The link uses the "net" almost exclusively, which is not "jobs created", but "net difference between then and now", two different things.

    Second, it chooses not to accept temporary census jobs at any value.....but when the Administration was touting job figures and unemployement, guess what was included in those numbers....yup, temporary census workers.

    See what I mean about how numbers can be used to promote a certain viewpoint? When it comes to softening real unemployement, the Adminw as happy to include those workers as jobs and jobs created (and I would guss your source link did not, at the time, proclaim the Administration "false" for having done so), but now, in terms of "jobs created", which, temporary or not a census job is a created job for the period it was active, some would now choose to simply ignore those jobs completely.

    TLDR: Statistical manipulation best manipulation?

    And Tater is right, the fact we're quibbling over how many jobs were created, not the idea that cuts to Govt. might be called for in the "greatest recession since the great depression" proves that the issue (Govt. size/cost) is ignored, and the details (numbers of jobs as defined by each, lack of pity in "so be it" rhetoric, etc.) is instead made the issue.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    i think the number is closer to 100k than 200k but either way it shows a political insensitivity.

    The GOP have painted themselves into a corner.

    We hear about adding jobs and how Obama's supposed to add jobs, but not GOV'T jobs... it's a mixed message. what do we expect the gov't to do? add jobs from corporations? how?

    coming out of the worst downturn for 65 years, Do we want jobs or do we want austerity? cause we can't have both.

    It's fun to campaign on slash and burn the budget and cut jobs etc but actually doing that will have real world ramifications. There will be families affected by this.

    This is a preview of what will happen when (or if) they try to slash Medicare/SS. It's fun to talk about deficit reduction but no one actually wants it when they see what it looks like... and the hard facts of what cutting the deficit means.

  10. #10
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,555
    Post Thanks / Like
    And if a dem had said something similar, like "repubs are adding in guarantees for additional millions to boehners district for tech the DoD doesn't want. We're cutting that out, those plants will close. They'll lose ten thousand jobs, but so be it." - repubs would focus on the line there too. And it's all bull****. Good example of what's wrong with our gov't right now.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=isired;3960691]And if a dem had said something similar, like "repubs are adding in guarantees for additional millions to boehners district for tech the DoD doesn't want. We're cutting that out, those plants will close. They'll lose ten thousand jobs, but so be it." - repubs would focus on the line there too. And it's all bull****. Good example of what's wrong with our gov't right now.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

    oops....

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/politics/17-f-35-engine.html[/url]

    change you can believe in.....:yes: the only bullsh!t is the constant whining we hear from the left...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 02-16-2011 at 02:47 PM.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=isired;3960691]And if a dem had said something similar, like "repubs are adding in guarantees for additional millions to boehners district for tech the DoD doesn't want. We're cutting that out, those plants will close. They'll lose ten thousand jobs, but so be it." - repubs would focus on the line there too. And it's all bull****. Good example of what's wrong with our gov't right now.[/QUOTE]

    While I don't disagree (that engine project had to be killed, and it was, and I suport that), your reply is also indicative of something wrong with politics today IMO.

    Rather than address the core issue (Size and cost of Governemnt), you did what most seem to do. You changed the subject (from cost/size of Govt. to Millitary Engines and the speaker himself) and levied a political attack.

    In doing so, you both accurately nailed "something wrong with politics" whilst also engaging in the very thing you decried, the ignoring of the core issue the original comment was meant to address, and attacking of the speaker (broadly speaking, not just speaker of teh house) for somethign similar, but unrelated, to the core issue at hand.

    So now, we're debating engines and job numbers, not the basic fact that Govt. has grown during the hard times, not shrunk, and that the cost of that is soemthing that needs addressed.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3960714]

    So now, we're debating engines and job numbers, not the basic fact that Govt. has grown during the hard times, not shrunk, and that the cost of that is soemthing that needs addressed.[/QUOTE]

    growing gov't during hard times is essential keynesian policy and it's exactly what's supposed to happen. that's how the hard times turn around or at least don't worsen. (looking at current economic conditions i.e. recovery it seems to have been a good choice)

    There was a time before keynesian economics or fiat currency and there were crippling boom bust cycles every 10-20 years or so. Contrary to some opinions, life was not better off before the new deal and the fed.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    You'll have to forgive me Bit if I don't tend to reply to you much anymore.

    I know exactly where you stand on these issues, you stand with as high a tax rate as you can, as much Govt. spending as you can, and personal freedom and the little bits of free market in the private sector being an absolute afterthought to the Power and Authority of the State and what the State thinks is important, i.e. what they choose to fund. There is no circumstance where you would support a private entity over the State, in any conflict.

    Really, this is the recurrent and repetative theme, pretty much the only answer to all problems based on your posts.

    As such, it's rather obvious you'd prefer more (not less) Government Jobs (right?), higher taxes on the wealth classes you dislike (the "rich" and private companies, right? Clas Warfare = Equallity and Social Justice) and more Govt. power and authority over the economy and spending (right?) as the answer to our economic woes (or any other question of policy), and you would choose to ignore any deficts so created as unimportant (right?, you've said all these things here at one time or another).

    And anyone who would stand for anything else is simply an "obstructionist", who only cares about "the rich".

    That about cover 99% of your replies here, give or take? I think it does.

  15. #15
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,555
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3960714] Rather than address the core issue (Size and cost of Governemnt), you did what most seem to do. You changed the subject (from cost/size of Govt. to Millitary Engines and the speaker himself) and levied a political attack.

    In doing so, you both accurately nailed "something wrong with politics" whilst also engaging in the very thing you decried, the ignoring of the core issue the original comment was meant to address, and attacking of the speaker (broadly speaking, not just speaker of teh house) for somethign similar, but unrelated, to the core issue at hand.

    So now, we're debating engines and job numbers, not the basic fact that Govt. has grown during the hard times, not shrunk, and that the cost of that is soemthing that needs addressed.[/QUOTE]It was a recent example, nothing more. But I've never specifically objected to the size of government. I do object to the cost, and I don't think, on the scale were talking about, that they have to go hand in hand. I object to career politicians. I think the money/perks is what leads to that.



    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,555
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;3960703]oops....

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/politics/17-f-35-engine.html[/url]

    change you can believe in.....:yes: the only bullsh!t is the constant whining we hear from the left...[/QUOTE]LOL You say 'oops' like out was never on there, or it was taken out before anyone called them on it.



    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;3960629]i think the number is closer to 100k than 200k but either way it shows a political insensitivity.

    The GOP have painted themselves into a corner.

    We hear about adding jobs and how Obama's supposed to add jobs, but not GOV'T jobs... it's a mixed message. what do we expect the gov't to do? [B]add jobs from corporations? [/B]how?

    coming out of the worst downturn for 65 years, Do we want jobs or do we want austerity? cause we can't have both.

    It's fun to campaign on slash and burn the budget and cut jobs etc but actually doing that will have real world ramifications. There will be families affected by this.

    This is a preview of what will happen when (or if) they try to slash Medicare/SS. It's fun to talk about deficit reduction but no one actually wants it when they see what it looks like... and the hard facts of what cutting the deficit means.[/QUOTE]

    LOL

    Yes. Corportaions and small businesses too.

    How? Stop hindering them with absurd taxes and overregulation. Maybe then we'll stop shipping jobs overseas and start bringing them home. Not gonna happen though if you keep growing the size of government.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=isired;3960758]But I've never specifically objected to the size of government.[/QUOTE]

    Well, then have to little to discuss I'd say, if we were being honest.

    One who has no issue with the size (and with size inherantly comes power and authority, otherwise why the need for size?) of Government is so foreign and unacceptable to me, I truly do not know how to engage such people. I don't want to live in the same country as them, and would suggest they move to Europe or China, where such systems already exist, rather than continuing to try and make the US into the USSR circa 1960.

    When the answer to all problems becomes "let the State decide/control it".....I don't know how to reply. Except not to trust you.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    The people voted the Republicans in lower the debt. But Obama has no idea how to do that. He just bails out Freddie and Fannie and gives millions upon millions to GE and then hires the ex to jobs czar. Meanwhile the former fired over a thousand employees before leaving. Job creater my ass!

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3960753]
    I know exactly where you stand on these issues,

    That about cover 99% of your replies here, give or take? I think it does.[/QUOTE]

    I don't think you really understand my position. Is there a recovery?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us