Obama's "trickle up" poverty plan is working...

[AK Gandy]

Originally Posted by Binderpower

Why do you even comment?! If you were a true participant, you would learn to shut the hell up every now and then. Your snide remarks are pitiful.

That must be a.........yes.


.

[slyfly76]

Originally Posted by Pocket

Wow. Binder really is that stupid. And here I thought he was at least partially kidding about how dumb he is.

He claims there is a stock market bubble, when it's still FAR below previous levels before the economy tanked.

I said the economy is stagnant, and he said building is stagnant as if to disagree with me. Not quite sure how he thought that argument was supposed to work out.

He claimed gas is much higher, but it's still nowhere near the RECORD levels that we saw back during Bush's administration.

He claimed "rubber" (tires) was much higher. That's because of tariffs, which happened to be supported for the longest time by the republican right wingers in order to keep uber-low Chinese wages from undercutting American labor.... or so that was their argument.

He claimed food is higher.... yet it's still nowhere close to the prices seen during Bush's administration.

He claimed land is high... yet it's still nowhere near the prices seen during Bush's administration prior to the housing market collapse.

He claimed taxes are higher.... yet the taxes have remained pretty much the same, including extensions to Bush's own tax cuts.

And somehow after all of that, we are the ones living under a rock.

Originally Posted by AK Gandy

Are you drinking again?


.

First off I'm an average guy who likes my guns and my freedom and served in the us army to ensure i keep both. I will confess to you that i don't know much about gross domestic product figures but as an average man who works his ass off for a living and looks around at people sitting on thier asses and collecting a check while i haven't had a raise in three years because i work for a municipality and our ceo doesn't want too draw attention from the private sector who is currently struggling,I can tell you that what is going on in our gov't isn't working. now i'm not saying romney is the answer but I'm ready to try something different. I don't think binder is too far off everywhere i look people are struggling, now bofore you call me ignorant to the situation and site you charts and the dow i don't need them I have eyes and all the information i need i see everyday. Now if only we had some more options for president.

[Binderpower]

Originally Posted by slyfly76

First off I'm an average guy who likes my guns and my freedom and served in the us army to ensure i keep both. I will confess to you that i don't know much about gross domestic product figures but as an average man who works his ass off for a living and looks around at people sitting on thier asses and collecting a check while i haven't had a raise in three years because i work for a municipality and our ceo doesn't want too draw attention from the private sector who is currently struggling,I can tell you that what is going on in our gov't isn't working. now i'm not saying romney is the answer but I'm ready to try something different. I don't think binder is too far off everywhere i look people are struggling, now bofore you call me ignorant to the situation and site you charts and the dow i don't need them I have eyes and all the information i need i see everyday. Now if only we had some more options for president.

I concur! I agree about a better option, but I am afraid Romney is our only and best option at this point. I still feel Romney is too out of touch with us common folk. But Obama has never spent enough time in America nor has he ever held a job to even know what common folk are...

[Pocket]

Originally Posted by Dave

Yet both questions were answered correctly.

No they weren't. And once again I'll prove it to everyone how much of a liar Dave is. After all, Dave recently said that everything he states is fact and that he always backs it up. So let's put it to the test.

First one, you originally said this: "Do you even understand how UE numbers are figured under Obama?"

I could make UE look low too if I eliminated over 1/3rd of the US workforce"

Then I said this: "show us all the difference in unemployment calculations between the Bush administration and the Obama administration."

And you replied with these links:
- Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11% - Forbes

- Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

Of course I said that didn't answer the question, and you said it did. Now I'm calling you out as a liar here:

Now so that everyone can clearly see, you questioned Gandy's ability to understand how unemployment numbers are "figured under Obama". So my reply was to show everyone that it's actually YOU who doesn't understand it. Unemployment figures are actually calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS for short). The methods and benchmarks they use to calculate the work force and resulting unemployment are the exact same methods and benchmarks used during the Bush administration. In fact, their group definition sheet as to how they separate the labor force was printed in 2004. So since you stated "under Obama" and "eliminated 1/3rd of the US workforce" to imply that the figures are calculated differently compared to previous administrations, I challenged to you show us all how the BLS has changed their calculation methods between the two administrations.

Neither one of your articles answered that question. Instead, you simply cited 3rd party opinions of what they "think" the actual unemployment rate is, using different statistics and methods than the BLS. Since these are non-government agencies calculating different labor statistics, you did not answer the question. You said you did, but you didn't.

So in order to prove you were not lying just then, go ahead and quote from either one or both articles where it shows that the BLS, not some third party, now calculates unemployment rates differently under Obama than it did under Bush.



On to the second one.....



I said (the part you highlighted to respond): "The Fed doesn't create money."

To which you responded: "Since when? You may want to go back to school and study just how money is created"

Then I said: "Show me how the Fed creates money then. You've been called out yet again."

And you posted this link:

- Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First, that link simply talks about hard currency. However, if you actually read the article, it clearly states that the currency is ISSUED TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE. Wait.... WHAT?!?!?!?! If it's issued to the Federal Reserve, then the Fed didn't create it. Yep, that's right Dave, and unlike you I can actually quote directly from your own link:

"Federal Reserve Notes are authorized by Section 411 of Title 12 of the United States Code and are issued to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The notes are then put into circulation by the Federal Reserve Banks, at which point they become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks and obligations of the United States."

So.... if the Fed didn't create the money, then who did?

Oh wait, the article tells you further down who actually made it:

"Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a bureau of the Department of the Treasury. When Federal Reserve Banks require additional notes for circulation, they must post collateral in the form direct federal obligations, private bank obligations, or assets purchased through open market operations. If the notes are newly printed, they also pay the BEP for the cost of printing (about 4¢ per note). This differs from the issue of coins, which are purchased for their face value."

Here it clearly states that the Department of Treasury (under the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) is who creates the money - in this case cash. Oh, but I'm not done, there's more in that paragraph. You see, they don't just give it to the Fed. OH NO. The Fed actually has to BUY it from the Treasury. Not only that, but THEY ALSO HAVE TO PAY THE PRINTING COST of paper money.

So once again Dave has no clue what he is talking about. And once again he posts a link that has precisely zero information to back up his statements.

But I thought the almighty Dave always posts factual information, and that he always backs it up? Well, I just called Dave out on his bogus lie yet again.

[Pocket]

Originally Posted by Binderpower

Pocketpu$$y, why do deflect? The average prices of tires are higher in 2012 than in previous years. What is so hard to grasp about that?

And fuel is still lower now than it was in the first half of 2008.

You see, for every example you can give of a rising price under Obama, I can also show an example of a price that is cheaper under Obama than under Bush.

Originally Posted by Binderpower

I am much like the people of Missouri and you have to show me. Well I am showing you the utter truth which you can't accept.

What "utter truth"? You claimed everything was 10 times worse under Obama. Yet you have not even shown one single example to back up that claim.

If you can't back up a claim, how can it be "utter truth"?

Originally Posted by Binderpower

You have nothing. You are an empty soul with empty thoughts trying to act smarter than what you really are. Just because you sit behind a pc all day and have the internet at your fingertips doesn't make you wizard. You are in such denial it is embarassing to read. At least I understand right from wrong and what is working to what is working. This isn't working!

Brag about yourself more please.

Originally Posted by Binderpower

1 out of 5 children live in poverty today. More people are on welfare today than they were in 2008! What more do you want to hear?

Why don't you try and sugarcoat some more you pile of garbage!

Housing starts are up compared to 2008.

Oops, yet another example of you citing something worse, and I cite something better. I can play this game all day long.

[ducatirider944]

Originally Posted by Pocket

Housing starts are up compared to 2008.
Oops, yet another example of you citing something worse, and I cite something better. I can play this game all day long.

Ummm, didn't I just have this conversation just a few posts back with Gandy (I see he dodged that post at least the numbers part) I have a feeling you will do the exact same with this post.

Housing starts 2008
January 1.064 million
Febuary 1.107 million
March 988.000
April 1.004 million
May 982,000
June 1.089 million
July 949,000
August 854,000
September 824,000
October 767,000
November 655,000
December 558,000

Housing Starts 2011
January 596,000
Febuary 479,000
March 549,000
April 523,000
May 560.000
June 604,000
July 601,000
August 571,000
September 658,000
October 628,000
November 685,000
December 657,000

Housing Starts 2012
January 699,000
Febuary 698,000
March 654,000 http://www.census.gov/construction/n...nst_201203.pdf
April 717,000 http://www.census.gov/construction/n...nst_201204.pdf
May 708,000 http://www.census.gov/construction/n...nst_201205.pdf
June 760,000 http://www.census.gov/construction/n...nst_201206.pdf

All the number that are posted without a direct link are from this chart, http://www.forecast-chart.com/chart-housing-starts.html which the numbers were all pulled from the same census reports above other than the last 4 months were missing so I pulled the reports with links myself. So your statement of the housing market is better today than in 2008 is wrong, The market today is down about 30% from 2008, but is up from 2011 by 12-15% depending on the month (that is saying 2011 was down 40-50% from 2008) If you need help with a calculator, I can give you formula's to figure out percentages. So I'm calling you out Curtis, are you going to tuck tail and ignore this post or man up and say you were wrong? You have been called out. Housing markets are something I know just a little bit about.

[AK Gandy]

Originally Posted by ducatirider944

Ummm, didn't I just have this conversation just a few posts back with Gandy (I see he dodged that post at least the numbers part).

Liar.


Post#55

Originally Posted by AK Gandy

It's simply a year over year comparison.

No one has said we are back to the "good old days."

The bottom line (and one that you Obama haters...hate), is the fact that housing starts have increased from the previous year in the last two years.

In other words, the precipitous slide under Bush......... has been reversed.

Now argue with those facts.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Pocket

No they weren't. And once again I'll prove it to everyone how much of a liar Dave is. After all, Dave recently said that everything he states is fact and that he always backs it up. So let's put it to the test.

First one, you originally said this: "Do you even understand how UE numbers are figured under Obama?"

I could make UE look low too if I eliminated over 1/3rd of the US workforce"

Then I said this: "show us all the difference in unemployment calculations between the Bush administration and the Obama administration."

And you replied with these links:
- Don't Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11% - Forbes

- Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

Of course I said that didn't answer the question, and you said it did. Now I'm calling you out as a liar here:

Now so that everyone can clearly see, you questioned Gandy's ability to understand how unemployment numbers are "figured under Obama". So my reply was to show everyone that it's actually YOU who doesn't understand it. Unemployment figures are actually calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS for short). The methods and benchmarks they use to calculate the work force and resulting unemployment are the exact same methods and benchmarks used during the Bush administration. In fact, their group definition sheet as to how they separate the labor force was printed in 2004. So since you stated "under Obama" and "eliminated 1/3rd of the US workforce" to imply that the figures are calculated differently compared to previous administrations, I challenged to you show us all how the BLS has changed their calculation methods between the two administrations.

Neither one of your articles answered that question. Instead, you simply cited 3rd party opinions of what they "think" the actual unemployment rate is, using different statistics and methods than the BLS. Since these are non-government agencies calculating different labor statistics, you did not answer the question. You said you did, but you didn't.

So in order to prove you were not lying just then, go ahead and quote from either one or both articles where it shows that the BLS, not some third party, now calculates unemployment rates differently under Obama than it did under Bush.



On to the second one.....



I said (the part you highlighted to respond): "The Fed doesn't create money."

To which you responded: "Since when? You may want to go back to school and study just how money is created"

Then I said: "Show me how the Fed creates money then. You've been called out yet again."

And you posted this link:

- Federal Reserve Note - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First, that link simply talks about hard currency. However, if you actually read the article, it clearly states that the currency is ISSUED TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE. Wait.... WHAT?!?!?!?! If it's issued to the Federal Reserve, then the Fed didn't create it. Yep, that's right Dave, and unlike you I can actually quote directly from your own link:

"Federal Reserve Notes are authorized by Section 411 of Title 12 of the United States Code and are issued to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The notes are then put into circulation by the Federal Reserve Banks, at which point they become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks and obligations of the United States."

So.... if the Fed didn't create the money, then who did?

Oh wait, the article tells you further down who actually made it:

"Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a bureau of the Department of the Treasury. When Federal Reserve Banks require additional notes for circulation, they must post collateral in the form direct federal obligations, private bank obligations, or assets purchased through open market operations. If the notes are newly printed, they also pay the BEP for the cost of printing (about 4¢ per note). This differs from the issue of coins, which are purchased for their face value."

Here it clearly states that the Department of Treasury (under the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) is who creates the money - in this case cash. Oh, but I'm not done, there's more in that paragraph. You see, they don't just give it to the Fed. OH NO. The Fed actually has to BUY it from the Treasury. Not only that, but THEY ALSO HAVE TO PAY THE PRINTING COST of paper money.

So once again Dave has no clue what he is talking about. And once again he posts a link that has precisely zero information to back up his statements.

But I thought the almighty Dave always posts factual information, and that he always backs it up? Well, I just called Dave out on his bogus lie yet again.

Yet both were correct and direct answers to your questions.

Try clicking and reading. That might help rather than deflecting because you dont like the truth.

Your lover Obama is history

[Binderpower]

Originally Posted by ducatirider944

Ummm, didn't I just have this conversation just a few posts back with Gandy (I see he dodged that post at least the numbers part) I have a feeling you will do the exact same with this post.

Housing starts 2008
January 1.064 million
Febuary 1.107 million
March 988.000
April 1.004 million
May 982,000
June 1.089 million
July 949,000
August 854,000
September 824,000
October 767,000
November 655,000
December 558,000

Housing Starts 2011
January 596,000
Febuary 479,000
March 549,000
April 523,000
May 560.000
June 604,000
July 601,000
August 571,000
September 658,000
October 628,000
November 685,000
December 657,000

Housing Starts 2012
January 699,000
Febuary 698,000
March 654,000 http://www.census.gov/construction/n...nst_201203.pdf
April 717,000 http://www.census.gov/construction/n...nst_201204.pdf
May 708,000 http://www.census.gov/construction/n...nst_201205.pdf
June 760,000 http://www.census.gov/construction/n...nst_201206.pdf

All the number that are posted without a direct link are from this chart, http://www.forecast-chart.com/chart-housing-starts.html which the numbers were all pulled from the same census reports above other than the last 4 months were missing so I pulled the reports with links myself. So your statement of the housing market is better today than in 2008 is wrong, The market today is down about 30% from 2008, but is up from 2011 by 12-15% depending on the month (that is saying 2011 was down 40-50% from 2008) If you need help with a calculator, I can give you formula's to figure out percentages. So I'm calling you out Curtis, are you going to tuck tail and ignore this post or man up and say you were wrong? You have been called out. Housing markets are something I know just a little bit about.

Thanks Ducati,

Gandy I know I told you to check it out for yourself, but you failed to show the rest of the story like Paul Harvey would say.

[Pocket]

Originally Posted by Dave

Yet both were correct and direct answers to your questions.

Try clicking and reading. That might help rather than deflecting because you dont like the truth.

Your lover Obama is history

And there you have it folks. Dave refuses to back up his claims. Even when I directly quoted his own sources proving him wrong, he simply deflects to tell me to go back and read them.

Dave, your argument was completely destroyed. And this response you gave only solidifies to everyone that you have zero backbone.