- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: U.S. private employment growth eases but manufacturing shines: ADP
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:19 pm to bfniii
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:19 pm to bfniii
quote:
there's no denying that the cbo and the wh monkeyed with obama's numbers
what exactly do you mean by saying the CBO "monkeyed with obama's numbers"? i'll go ahead and deny that claim. the CBO isn't even an original data source for any economic numbers (other than an estimate of output gaps)
quote:
it's also undeniable that obama was one of the 4 worst economic presidents ever, not posting even 1 quarter of 3% gdp growth
this is easily shown to be objectively wrong.
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 1:21 pm
4
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:22 pm to 90proofprofessional
Obama is a bottom 10/15 economic president, 90proof. It's part of the reason his hand-picked successor lost
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:26 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
what exactly do you mean by saying the CBO "monkeyed with obama's numbers"? i'll go ahead and deny that claim. the CBO isn't even an original data source for any economic numbers (other than an estimate of output gaps)
Yeah, I never understand why people attack the CBO. They crunch the numbers in the parameters provided to them. It's like blaming the baker for a disgusting cake when he's provided with shitty ingredients.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:28 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
the CBO
Wasn't this the agency that Obamacare based its numbers on and then about a year after it went into effect they admitted the number was wrong in retrospect and the number was considerably higher?
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:29 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
i'm not saying he wasn't. i'm saying that multiple things that poster said are 'undeniable' are just wrong. i know that although we totally love facts around here, because those claims went alongside trashing of obama, they were going to just go unchallenged
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:34 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Wasn't this the agency that Obamacare based its numbers on and then about a year after it went into effect they admitted the number was wrong in retrospect and the number was considerably higher
what "number"? you understand they have to constantly score all kinds of shite all the time, including bills when they are formally modified, and you want to vaguely refer some error you heard they made one time? iirc they did significantly underestimate the size of the medicaid expansion in several states
then again, considering that policy had literally never been done and they had no historical data to base the estimate off of, it's pretty hard to find anyone who had better estimates
and you'll find that's the common theme with criticism of CBO and JCT- lots of complaints, but very little presentation and defense of actual alternative numbers put out there
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:36 pm to GumboPot
If Obama had done this he would be winning the Nobel Prize for Economics.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:37 pm to Mulerider
Obama would have won the Econ Nobel if he ever SAID he would do this
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:38 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
like blaming the baker for a disgusting cake when he's provided with shite
i just think of them as basically a calculator where you have to be very clear and precise with your question
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:52 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
complete bullshite
quote:
China’s Ministry of Finance announced that it would cut tariffs on 187 consumer products. The lower duty rate took effect on December 1, so Chinese consumers are now benefitting from more competition and lower prices. As noted in the announcement, the average tariff on the covered products will be brought down from 17.3% to 7.3%.
LINK
Posted on 12/7/17 at 1:56 pm to GumboPot
man you know trump didn't negotiate that shite
Posted on 12/7/17 at 10:43 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:whenever jobs numbers or economic numbers were posted, they were quietly revised downward after a few weeks. it happened several times. but the sheeple needed something to believe in so they bought it.
what exactly do you mean by saying the CBO "monkeyed with obama's numbers"?
quote:
this is easily shown to be objectively wrong.
Posted on 12/7/17 at 10:45 pm to bfniii
i'm amazed the people actually believe obama did a good job economically. it's astounding. but at the same time, they acknowledge that he sucked by trying to blame bush. well, which is it? igits
it just ignores the obvious. he didn't have business friendly policies and consequently, business wasn't good. trump has been much the opposite and guess what? business is optimistic. it's just not rocket science. get the govt out of the way.
it just ignores the obvious. he didn't have business friendly policies and consequently, business wasn't good. trump has been much the opposite and guess what? business is optimistic. it's just not rocket science. get the govt out of the way.
This post was edited on 12/7/17 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 12/9/17 at 3:13 pm to bfniii
90, where did you go? i was hoping for more condescension from you. i'm sure you can explain how the graph is wrong.
Posted on 12/9/17 at 3:25 pm to bfniii
quote:
90, where did you go? i was hoping for more condescension from you. i'm sure you can explain how the graph is wrong.
you poor thing- you don't seem to understand that the graph you posted doesn't even support your assertion.
i quoted and bolded that assertion in an earlier post- here, i'll even link it direct for you.
are you sure you want more condescension? you've made it easy, so we can do that. your call.
would you like:
- to figure out why you were wrong on your own
- a hint
- to stop further embarrassing yourself by bumping this thread
i'm indifferent between the three
re the CBO: i've already told you directly that CBO doesn't have any say at all over economic numbers, so your claim about them revising them is just laughably wrong. go ahead and double down on that one if you like.
This post was edited on 12/9/17 at 3:28 pm
Posted on 12/9/17 at 3:52 pm to 90proofprofessional
ok. so you're going to be a special kind of stubborn. here's more on the graph
gdp
This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)
i mistakenly said cbo when i meant bls and those numbers were routinely revised. so, the point still stands and you defending obama's economic legacy is a losing proposition despite your comical condescension
gdp
This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)
i mistakenly said cbo when i meant bls and those numbers were routinely revised. so, the point still stands and you defending obama's economic legacy is a losing proposition despite your comical condescension
Posted on 12/9/17 at 4:03 pm to bfniii
quote:
i mistakenly said cbo when i meant bls and those numbers were routinely revised.
bls doesn't do shite with gdp numbers either
but that's beside the point you're trying to claim about the numbers being "monkeyed with", which you have provided no evidence of, and have no evidence of
further, you're still trying to waffle hard on that very specific claim you made about quarterly gdp. that one you said was undeniable.
quote:
the point still stands
both points i called you on were objectively wrong, full stop
quote:
and you defending obama's economic legacy
no matter how much you wish this were true, me calling you out for posting wrong shite has nothing to do with obama. it has to do with the actual data, and the way the agencies actually work.
Posted on 12/9/17 at 4:05 pm to bfniii
quote:
there's no denying that the cbo and the wh monkeyed with obama's numbers.
thatsracist.gif
Posted on 12/9/17 at 4:25 pm to bfniii
Obama had multiple quarters with > 3.0% increase in GDP. He never had a full year with > 3.0% increase. Always came out to average less, usually between 1.8 and 2.5%.
Posted on 12/10/17 at 11:36 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:i wasn't talking about them changing gdp numbers. they changed jobs numbers. you know you can verify this and i'm pretty sure you are already aware of this but just being an arse
bls doesn't do shite with gdp numbers either
quote:sigh
which you have provided no evidence of, and have no evidence of
#1
even npr acknowledges it
#3
#4
this just isn't hard to verify. the point is, the bls/white house would announce doctored numbers and the leftist media would run with it. then, the numbers were quietly revised downward later. fortunately, enterprising journalists weren't fooled by the monkey business. but apparently, some people were and still are.
look, i'm not laying all of the blame at obama's feet. the president has a limited, indirect effect on the economy. however, it's not hard to see that his policies were not business friendly and, what do you know, business wasn't good. it's just not a controversial point
quote:which i substantiated with a quote/link. i noticed that you didn't address that but continued with histrionics.
waffle hard on that very specific claim
quote:hopefully, this has been cleared up for you. i have a feeling you're going to be exceedingly obstinate. you seem like the kind of person who can't accept when you're wrong.
it has to do with the actual data, and the way the agencies actually work.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News