Obama will not win

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUTiga, May 8, 2012.

  1. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    yea part of that is a leader, of which we do not have.
     
  2. LSUDad

    LSUDad Veteran Member

  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    What has he done that seem un-leaderish to you.
     
  4. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    we are a democracy which means that we have leaders....about 550 or so of them including the President, VP, cabinet, etc. trying to blame one person for the ills of the country or deciding that the problems stem from one persons lack of leadership is ludicrous. Obama can't just whip the Republican congress into following his agenda no more than GWB could do so to the Democrats. It takes cooperation from both sides....this is the way our founding fathers set up our government so one person never carried too much weight. KyleK is right, the "stop the other guy" has to stop from both sides and common ground has to be found.
     
    GiantDuckFan likes this.
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

  6. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

  7. LSUDad

    LSUDad Veteran Member


    [​IMG]
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Well, Dad has no opinions, apparently.
     
  9. LSUDad

    LSUDad Veteran Member

  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Excellent! A comment that one can address. No one is going to debate an article.

    The rate is 8.1%. The way to calculate the unemployment rate has not changed. You don't get to change the formula to unfairly make Obama look worse than his predecessors. Your article is deeply flawed. The author fails to cite his data source and apparently pulls a 65.8% "real labor force participation rate" out of thin air to calculate his curve and come up with 5.4 million phantom unemployed workers.

    He then misleads by suggesting that the "spread" between the real curve and his "implied" curve is a bad thing but neglects to point out that the spread is rising because the real unemployment curve is declining while his "implied curve" still rises. And he goes on to say that the "spread" between the standard calculation and his phony one "is the most it has been since the early 80's". So it would seem, but this, of course, means that the "implied" unemployment rate under the Great Ronald Reagan himself would have been over 15%! And those were the "good old days".
     

Share This Page