Pol. Rammifications of Unemploy Topping 10%

[BlueCollarJoe]

Vercingetorix VII

(Some) Democrats were definitely hoping for failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that goes back to the whole anti-war ideology, the belief that violence is never an acceptable answer.

The problem is that Republicans rarely embrace ideological stances that don't serve their purposes, so the whole idealist defense doesn't work. They're pro-freedom except when it comes to suspending habeas corpus and using torture on Muslims or Mexican immigrants, they're anti-government except when it comes to bloating the military industrial complex, they're pro states' rights except when it comes to federal laws banning gay marriage. The entire Republican party as it exists at this moment is a wash of contradictions and hypocrisies.

One of the reasons I've been tempted to like or at least appreciate Glenn Beck and the Paulians, despite the whole inanity, wilingness to lie or ignore evidence that contradicts their desired outcomes, and the sheer impracticality of half the s**t they throw out is that this libertarian movement of the Republican party would represent a shift towards at least a solid ideology.

As I said, I think we're witnessing an ongoing shift where the Republicans are becoming the Jeffersonian Republicans, and the Democrats the Federalists.

But maybe I've just been reading too much early American history lately. But the similarities are odd, the mixture of populism and xenophobic sentiment fostered in the Tea Party movement being especially striking. I have little doubt that today Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson and probably even James Madison would vote Republican (although the latter might have to endure constantly being called a RINO), and Washington, Adams and Hamilton would vote Democrat.

It helps that the actually socialist branch of the Democratic party, rather than those who merely believe in a strong federal government that's capable of dealing with problems, has mostly withered into irrelevance.

Truthfully, both parties are showing no fiscal responsibility, and aren't that impressive. I think we're slowly seeing the erosion of both parties, as they attempt to re-align. Ignoring the middle, which both do, is going to cause one of them to shift, and then the other.
The lines really are blurred between right and left.

[Mokie7]

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Vercingetorix VII

It's a sign of how far conservatives have come from their roots that instead of gloomily predicting that policies will fail, they're actively hoping for that failure.

It's a stark distinction, really.

Know what's scary as hell? That is almost verbatim what was said about the dems previously, and now it is being said about the reps.
Nothing has changed but the word dem and reps position.

So tell me: how are the Republicans NOT hoping for failure? And when were Democrats hoping for failure?

Hoping for and expecting it are two entirely different things from both parties.

So you're now denying your entire claim?

[BlueCollarJoe]

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Vercingetorix VII

It's a sign of how far conservatives have come from their roots that instead of gloomily predicting that policies will fail, they're actively hoping for that failure.

It's a stark distinction, really.

Know what's scary as hell? That is almost verbatim what was said about the dems previously, and now it is being said about the reps.
Nothing has changed but the word dem and reps position.

So tell me: how are the Republicans NOT hoping for failure? And when were Democrats hoping for failure?

Hoping for and expecting it are two entirely different things from both parties.

So you're now denying your entire claim?

Not what I said nor meant. I expect these plans to fail miserably. I'd rather be proven wrong, as I've said previously, but I don't expect it.

[Less Than Liz]

Raywazza

Quraz

lrn2economics. Lag is lag is lag is lag.

I've taken econ before.

Me too!!!! Let's be friends! I'll send my transcript!

[Mokie7]

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Vercingetorix VII

It's a sign of how far conservatives have come from their roots that instead of gloomily predicting that policies will fail, they're actively hoping for that failure.

It's a stark distinction, really.

Know what's scary as hell? That is almost verbatim what was said about the dems previously, and now it is being said about the reps.
Nothing has changed but the word dem and reps position.

So tell me: how are the Republicans NOT hoping for failure? And when were Democrats hoping for failure?

Hoping for and expecting it are two entirely different things from both parties.

So you're now denying your entire claim?

Not what I said nor meant. I expect these plans to fail miserably. I'd rather be proven wrong, as I've said previously, but I don't expect it.

But this is about hoping, not expecting.

[BlueCollarJoe]

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

So tell me: how are the Republicans NOT hoping for failure? And when were Democrats hoping for failure?

Hoping for and expecting it are two entirely different things from both parties.

So you're now denying your entire claim?

Not what I said nor meant. I expect these plans to fail miserably. I'd rather be proven wrong, as I've said previously, but I don't expect it.

But this is about hoping, not expecting.

Just like the dems hoped we'd fail in Iraq?

[Mokie7]

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

So tell me: how are the Republicans NOT hoping for failure? And when were Democrats hoping for failure?

Hoping for and expecting it are two entirely different things from both parties.

So you're now denying your entire claim?

Not what I said nor meant. I expect these plans to fail miserably. I'd rather be proven wrong, as I've said previously, but I don't expect it.

But this is about hoping, not expecting.

Just like the dems hoped we'd fail in Iraq?

When?

[Ammo Amy]

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

BlueCollarJoe

Mokie7

So tell me: how are the Republicans NOT hoping for failure? And when were Democrats hoping for failure?

Hoping for and expecting it are two entirely different things from both parties.

So you're now denying your entire claim?

Not what I said nor meant. I expect these plans to fail miserably. I'd rather be proven wrong, as I've said previously, but I don't expect it.

But this is about hoping, not expecting.

Just like the dems hoped we'd fail in Iraq?

C'mon, Joe. You KNOW people are going to ask for proof of that claim. People questioned the motives for going in, and the worth of the cost of being there. Nobody I ever heard of wanted us to fail, except some of the Iraqi factions and al Qaeda. Unless you're referring to some of those so-called patriots that switched sides when their party lost in the last election, so they could prove their point and regain seats.

[iSkuld]

Raywazza

Quraz

lrn2economics. Lag is lag is lag is lag.

I've taken econ before. There is no justification behind calling it a lagging indicator. Fact is until the people are employed they are no better off, no matter how high the DOW goes.

Taking econ and learning Econ are two different things. And yes there is, have you noticed that at the trough of a recession the unemployment rate is lower?

[Raywazza]

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Quraz

lrn2economics. Lag is lag is lag is lag.

I've taken econ before. There is no justification behind calling it a lagging indicator. Fact is until the people are employed they are no better off, no matter how high the DOW goes.

Taking econ and learning Econ are two different things. And yes there is, have you noticed that at the trough of a recession the unemployment rate is lower?

Back up. First we must define what the economy is. "the system of production and distribution and consumption", or in otherwords the people who work (eg produce) and the people who consume.

So your question is basic is "have you noticed that when the economy is bottoming out there are less people working and less people consuming". My basic answer to this is NOOOOO, REALLY?!.

[iSkuld]

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Quraz

lrn2economics. Lag is lag is lag is lag.

I've taken econ before. There is no justification behind calling it a lagging indicator. Fact is until the people are employed they are no better off, no matter how high the DOW goes.

Taking econ and learning Econ are two different things. And yes there is, have you noticed that at the trough of a recession the unemployment rate is lower?

Back up. First we must define what the economy is. "the system of production and distribution and consumption", or in otherwords the people who work (eg produce) and the people who consume.

So your question is basic is "have you noticed that when the economy is bottoming out there are less people working and less people consuming". My basic answer to this is NOOOOO, REALLY?!.

And as the economy improves, unemployment goes up. The economy is back in a swing but companies can't open it doors YET.

[Raywazza]

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Quraz

lrn2economics. Lag is lag is lag is lag.

I've taken econ before. There is no justification behind calling it a lagging indicator. Fact is until the people are employed they are no better off, no matter how high the DOW goes.

Taking econ and learning Econ are two different things. And yes there is, have you noticed that at the trough of a recession the unemployment rate is lower?

Back up. First we must define what the economy is. "the system of production and distribution and consumption", or in otherwords the people who work (eg produce) and the people who consume.

So your question is basic is "have you noticed that when the economy is bottoming out there are less people working and less people consuming". My basic answer to this is NOOOOO, REALLY?!.

And as the economy improves, unemployment goes up. The economy is back in a swing but companies can't open it doors YET.

You have that backwards. As there are more producers and consumers that makes the economy better. Remember, the economy is the abstract concept of consumers and producers. So once there are more people with jobs (eg producers) the economy will continue to lack consumers and stay in the pits. You really didn't think about what they taught you, did they?

[iSkuld]

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Quraz

lrn2economics. Lag is lag is lag is lag.

I've taken econ before. There is no justification behind calling it a lagging indicator. Fact is until the people are employed they are no better off, no matter how high the DOW goes.

Taking econ and learning Econ are two different things. And yes there is, have you noticed that at the trough of a recession the unemployment rate is lower?

Back up. First we must define what the economy is. "the system of production and distribution and consumption", or in otherwords the people who work (eg produce) and the people who consume.

So your question is basic is "have you noticed that when the economy is bottoming out there are less people working and less people consuming". My basic answer to this is NOOOOO, REALLY?!.

And as the economy improves, unemployment goes up. The economy is back in a swing but companies can't open it doors YET.

You have that backwards. As there are more producers and consumers that makes the economy better. Remember, the economy is the abstract concept of consumers and producers. So once there are more people with jobs (eg producers) the economy will continue to lack consumers and stay in the pits. You really didn't think about what they taught you, did they?

I did, since I actually got an A in it it's quite fresh in my mind not to mention my Textbook even mentions that Unemployment rate is a lagging indicator.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/177.asp

[Raywazza]

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Taking econ and learning Econ are two different things. And yes there is, have you noticed that at the trough of a recession the unemployment rate is lower?

Back up. First we must define what the economy is. "the system of production and distribution and consumption", or in otherwords the people who work (eg produce) and the people who consume.

So your question is basic is "have you noticed that when the economy is bottoming out there are less people working and less people consuming". My basic answer to this is NOOOOO, REALLY?!.

And as the economy improves, unemployment goes up. The economy is back in a swing but companies can't open it doors YET.

You have that backwards. As there are more producers and consumers that makes the economy better. Remember, the economy is the abstract concept of consumers and producers. So once there are more people with jobs (eg producers) the economy will continue to lack consumers and stay in the pits. You really didn't think about what they taught you, did they?

I did, since I actually got an A in it it's quite fresh in my mind not to mention my Textbook even mentions that Unemployment rate was a lagging indicator.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/177.asp

A in economics means you were able to reguritate the answers they wanted you too. I too also made As in my econ classes. Of course if you count unemployement the way the Fed does (With statistics at least a month old at any given point in time) it is lagging. However the US government DOES keep up to date numbers which are more accurate even and at worst a day old.

So once again. You seem to have a lack of comprehension. Economy is the producers and consumers. The economy doing door means that either there are fewer producers, fewer consumers or something askew. So stating "The economy is reccesion (eg doing poorly), did you notice there are less consumers and producers" is a redundant statement and shows you don't really get it.

[iSkuld]

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Raywazza

Miss Skuld

Taking econ and learning Econ are two different things. And yes there is, have you noticed that at the trough of a recession the unemployment rate is lower?

Back up. First we must define what the economy is. "the system of production and distribution and consumption", or in otherwords the people who work (eg produce) and the people who consume.

So your question is basic is "have you noticed that when the economy is bottoming out there are less people working and less people consuming". My basic answer to this is NOOOOO, REALLY?!.

And as the economy improves, unemployment goes up. The economy is back in a swing but companies can't open it doors YET.

You have that backwards. As there are more producers and consumers that makes the economy better. Remember, the economy is the abstract concept of consumers and producers. So once there are more people with jobs (eg producers) the economy will continue to lack consumers and stay in the pits. You really didn't think about what they taught you, did they?

I did, since I actually got an A in it it's quite fresh in my mind not to mention my Textbook even mentions that Unemployment rate was a lagging indicator.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/177.asp

A in economics means you were able to reguritate the answers they wanted you too. I too also made As in my econ classes. Of course if you count unemployement the way the Fed does (With statistics at least a month old at any given point in time) it is lagging. However the US government DOES keep up to date numbers which are more accurate even and at worst a day old.

So once again. You seem to have a lack of comprehension. Economy is the producers and consumers. The economy doing door means that either there are fewer producers, fewer consumers or something askew. So stating "The economy is reccesion (eg doing poorly), did you notice there are less consumers and producers" is a redundant statement and shows you don't really get it.

Was this an AP class or not? I do get it, I also noticed that the trends of recession and the unemployment rate relationship (and the difference between other incdicators such as the Stock Market).

The health of an economy is more than just the unemployment rate, is it not?