- 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: WaPo - Republicans do complete flip on budget deficit
Posted on 2/13/18 at 4:53 pm to ocelot4ark
Posted on 2/13/18 at 4:53 pm to ocelot4ark
quote:
We will never get anywhere in this country if our people can't at least hold to their principles. You people downvoting the OP are fricking retarded if you're also claiming to be fiscally conservative. Because you aren't.
Meh, like I said in my previous post, it's a compromise which is something the Dums say they want to do but never do.
Now after the Republicans pass a compromise budget which gives the Dums more funds for social services, the schmucks on the left say the Republicans are hypocrites because they said they were against having larger deficits.
As the old saying goes, damned if you do and damned if you don't.
0
Posted on 2/13/18 at 5:45 pm to bfniii
quote:
here it is! "i don't want to do the legwork of disproving all the info provided."
good god. i AM directly addressing the direct data underlying those articles! you aren't, even though you could be- that's the point!
if there is an argument to be made for systematic bias, you first have to establish it in some kind of rigorous fashion. not by piecing together a bunch of articles and ignoring all the gaps.
quote:
i could show you 100% and you would still act like an idiot
oh? looking at something more than a select handful of revisions is only what i've been telling you to do the whole time.
quote:
those are just the ones i found in a few minutes of searching. freakin nitwit
you could have gone straight to the source data releases and found them all! you're either too chickenshit to do it because deep down you suspect your assertion will fall apart, or you're too ignorant to even know that you can. either one is bad enough
quote:
and those revisions were later revised downwards further proving my point. my gosh you are special
and if, say, a majority of the examples cited in your articles were later revised upward, would that un-prove your point then?
the beauty of going straight to the source releases is that i saw that happen for almost every single one of your articles that specifically talk about quarterly jobs revisions. that happened for each of these specific months your articles cited:
may 2011 (heritage article)
july 2012 (npr article)
august 2015 (townhall)
may 2016 (ibd article)
september 2015 (cnn money article)
even the july 2015 final revision, which you gleefully point out had a downward second revision, was still upward compared to the initial one.
now these upward revision examples are all still anecdotes and certainly do not demonstrate a consistent pattern of upward revision, but they're pretty devastating for the feeble excuse for an argument you've brought so far.
quote:
there we go. moving the goalposts to a ridiculous distance.
oh, no. that's what it would take. not some collection of anecdotes you collected by googling.
for the __th time, you need to look at the total number of upward vs downward to even start to make a real argument here. sorry if that fact hurts your fee-fees.
quote:
you said it didn't happen.
i proved to you that it did.
what do you imagine that i said "didn't happen"?
quote:
maga appears to be rolling along smoothly but, ANTIFA ALL THE WAYYYYYYY
i'll take that as an implicit "even YOU were too optimistic 90proof, but you still made the trumpkins look like the mouthbreathers they are"
Posted on 2/13/18 at 9:45 pm to roadGator
Woo hoo logical fallacies and the erosion of discourse.
Children.
Children.
This post was edited on 2/13/18 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:08 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:yes, by ignorantly saying that even though they show something, they don't show something. honestly, you are making this wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy harder than it is
i AM directly addressing the direct data underlying those articles
quote:"rigorous"
you first have to establish it in some kind of rigorous fashion
AGAIN, you said it didn't happen. i showed you it did, numerous times from numerous agencies. now you're moving the goalposts and acting like multiple people can't see a pattern. it was repeatedly reported on for nearly 8 years but you missed it, let me guess, because you live in an echo chamber. quote:all i needed to show was a few to establish the point. you otoh are apparently too mentally challenged to understand this point which is also happening in the other threads i see you post in, like this one.
select handful of revisions
quote:the articles i posted DID JUST THAT frickin genius. go back and look at them again. they cite the bls, the bea, etc.
you could have gone straight to the source data releases
quote:you TRIED to do this and i showed you that your pitiful example was later revised downward yet again. and to answer your question, no. it wouldn't prove your point. i've explained why
and if, say, a majority of the examples cited in your articles were later revised upward, would that un-prove your point then?
quote:see, this is a perfect example of how you are missing the point. you clearly don't understand what you are critiquing. the point is that the numbers are being fudged anyway. they were spurious and vacuous to begin with and this was explained CLEARLY in the 13 articles i cited. how can you call it "upward" when it was questionable to begin with? my word you are freaking DENSE. i would tell you to go back and read the articles again but i seriously don't think that would help you. maybe you know someone who sit down with you and walk you through it.
was still upward compared to the initial one
quote:that the numbers were misleading to begin with and then quietly revised downward. the economy was NEVER as good as he was trying to portray and every clued up observer could see right through what he was doing. you denied that point initially which is why i posted the articles substantiating the assertion. then, you predictably moved the goalposts using language like "systematic" and "rigorous," not that that exonerates your point anyway
what do you imagine that i said "didn't happen"?
quote:honestly, i've encountered some real dunces in 10+ years on this board but, you are pretty much at the top of intellectual dishonesty. i can't tell if you're retarded or schilling for the party and i can't recall ANYONE who had such a hard time with such a facile point.
you still made the trumpkins look like the mouthbreathers they are
so which is it, are you too stupid to understand this concept or are you just being obstinate in toeing the line?
Posted on 2/14/18 at 5:51 am to bfniii
quote:
you said it didn't happen. i showed you it did,
link to where i said there were no revisions or stop lying. you seem to be the only person who was unaware these revisions exist, or that they are done on a planned, consistent, and public schedule.
my clear contention is that this revision schedule is not evidence of "fudging", "monkeying with", or that the numbers are "misleading". unless you can demonstrate that they are significantly more likely to revised in a certain direction (purposefully at that), none of those things are true.
which you have still completely failed to do, and seem to think you DON'T need to try. and you seem to truly believe that you have proved something.
this is just getting sad, but we can certainly keep going. this post i'm responding to is laughably bad, even compared to your others, which is actually quite a feat.
quote:
now you're moving the goalposts and acting like multiple people can't see a pattern.
i once thought i saw that same pattern you do, prompted in part by it being "repeatedly reported" on as you say. then i looked closer, which you are too lazy/scared to do.
quote:
all i needed to show was a few to establish the point.
still wrong. always going to be wrong. what you call "the point" is nothing but a claim that you have now completely failed to support.
quote:
you TRIED to do this and i showed you that your pitiful example was later revised downward yet again. and to answer your question, no. it wouldn't prove your point. i've explained why
that doesn't even make sense. you posted a bunch of articles with examples of downward revisions, and when i look at those same revisions, most of them got revised upward the following month. you most certainly have NOT explained how this supports anything you've said. it in fact obliterates the point you think you made with your examples.
quote:
see, this is a perfect example of how you are missing the point. you clearly don't understand what you are critiquing. the point is that the numbers are being fudged anyway.
on the contrary, it shows unambiguously that YOU don't. if the initial number is lower than the final revised one, although one of the revisions is downward, how could the original number have possibly favored obama? it was a worse figure than what came out post-revisions.
quote:
that the numbers were misleading to begin with and then quietly revised downward. the economy was NEVER as good as he was trying to portray and every clued up observer could see right through what he was doing. you denied that point initially which is why i posted the articles substantiating the assertion. then, you predictably moved the goalposts using language like "systematic" and "rigorous," not that that exonerates your point anyway
i do deny that the numbers are "misleading", if by that you're implying that they are purposefully so. you have STILL not begun to effectively support your claim that one direction of revision is more likely than the other, let alone that this is case on purpose. i have now thoroughly demonstrated that your articles fall far, far short of this and in fact do not even try.
i take no issue with what you say about obama "trying to portray" things, but that has no bearing on official agency data releases. what obama's press secretary says about the economic numbers WAS spin, but the numbers themselves are not. stop trying to conflate the two; they are not remotely the same.
finally, if you don't think you need to look at the numbers in a systematic fashion in order to support a claim of systematic and purposeful bias, you're just stupid. full stop.
quote:
you are pretty much at the top of intellectual dishonesty. i can't tell if you're retarded or schilling for the party and i can't recall ANYONE who had such a hard time with such a facile point.
i'm not having a hard time with your point. it seems that i understand your own claim better than you do. the problem is that you can't support it. you don't even know how, which is really horrible, because you clearly need to hold onto it at all costs.
quote:
so which is it, are you too stupid to understand this concept or are you just being obstinate in toeing the line?
i'm not "toeing" a line. you are. you're the one pushing a tired narrative that you can't even defend.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 9:07 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
Woo hoo logical fallacies and the erosion of discourse. Children.
Children whine about downvotes. Look. No one likes the socialist. It's not a big deal.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 2:12 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:"i'll go ahead and deny that claim"
link to where i said there were no revisions or stop lying
DIRECT FREAKING QUOTE
quote:90, that is not the contention you halfwit. the contention is that the numbers were misleading to begin with and then quietly revised downward, quietly meaning obama touted them loudly but never mentioned the revisions. you don't even know what the issue is and you're acting like you're not an idiot. it's been explained plainly. i have posted more than enough substantiation to help you understand what the issue is that basically everyone knows happened. heck, the TITLES of the articles spell it out. GET HELP
these revisions exist, or that they are done on a planned, consistent, and public schedule.
quote:and you have been corrected on this in plain language. the issue is facile and not even controversial. read the articles. my gosh
my clear contention is that this revision schedule is not evidence of "fudging", "monkeying with", or that the numbers are "misleading"
quote:my word. if you read the articles and my response to this specific point, you would see that your statement here is proving my point.
it in fact obliterates the point you think you made with your examples
quote:THEY ARE ALL FREAKING BOGUS DUNCE. that's the point of the articles. the economy was never that good to begin with. and now we are even MORE SURE of that than we were at the time. also, i'm not sure that you can prove your assertion of the pattern that the "final" number always ended up higher than the initial number, particularly given what we now know about the underhanded nature of this specific practice and the poor economy in general
if the initial number is lower than the final revised one, although one of the revisions is downward, how could the original number have possibly favored obama? it was a worse figure than what came out post-revisions
quote:instead of typing this bullcrap, why don't you just admit "nah nah nah i can't hear you." here's the 90proof timeline
that has no bearing on official agency data releases
1. there wasn't a pattern (i just quoted you on this)
2. ok, so there was a pattern but, it wasn't subversive
3. ok, it was subversive but, the official numbers from the agencies are legit
all of which are disproven in the articles i cited
quote:already been done, not that you would know
if you don't think you need to look at the numbers in a systematic fashion
Posted on 2/14/18 at 2:24 pm to Eurocat
One of the few things in Washington that has bipartisan support is huge deficit spending.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 2:26 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
the guy lies, flip-flops, and panders more than obama and romney combined
Meh, in this case, all President Trump did was offer the Dums a compromise on DACA which is what the Dums say they want.
The ball is now on the Dums side of the net.
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 2/14/18 at 3:06 pm to bfniii
quote:
DIRECT FREAKING QUOTE
Did I say there were no revisions there, or did I deny that "the cbo and the wh monkeyed with obama's numbers"?
Let me spell it out for you, again: neither CBO nor "WH" have the authority to revise data releases. That authority and responsibility rests with BEA, BLS, or the relevant agency.
Regarding the claim of "monkeying with", you said:
quote:
whenever jobs numbers or economic numbers were posted, they were quietly revised downward after a few weeks
That's where you betrayed your utter lack of understanding of the well-established and publicly-known data release/revision process. What you said is also objectively wrong in at least 2 fundamental ways:
-the revision schedule is MONTHLY, and
-they are routinely revised UPWARD as well, and you have failed to show that downward revisions were more likely than upward.
quote:
90, that is not the contention you halfwit. the contention is that the numbers were misleading to begin with
You've still failed to support this. In what way can they be "misleading" if a revision in one direction is about as likely as the other, and the revision schedule is public?
This is why proof of systematic bias is required for your claim here.
quote:
you don't even know what the issue is
What i'm showing pretty clearly is that you have no idea how to show that "the issue" is any more than a figment of your imagination.
quote:
if you read the articles and my response to this specific point, you would see that your statement here is proving my point.
Risible, even on your own terms. You were the one who acted like a few examples of downward revisions proved your point, and what we have cumulatively now is more examples of upward revision than down.
quote:
i'm not sure that you can prove your assertion of the pattern that the "final" number always ended up higher than the initial number
I didn't assert that it always did. I just pointed out that in an easy majority of YOUR own cherrypicked examples, that did happen on the very next revision.
quote:
THEY ARE ALL FREAKING BOGUS DUNCE.
No they aren't. They measure what they measure, and they describe what they measure in transparent fashion. You've shown here that you're too lazy to bother to understand what they measure, how they do it, and how they refine their measurement.
quote:
1. there wasn't a pattern (i just quoted you on this)
You quoted me on no such thing, liar, as I showed in the first part of this post. However, you have now completely failed at proving there's a "pattern" of downward revisions.
quote:
2. ok, so there was a pattern but, it wasn't subversive
Never said that either, liar. You've still failed to demonstrate an actual pattern.
quote:
3. ok, it was subversive but, the official numbers from the agencies are legit
lol just lol
quote:
already been done, not that you would know
By whom? You? I'm not sure I believe that you'd even know where to look.
Posted on 2/14/18 at 3:12 pm to Eurocat
Running up the debt to own libs
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:08 am to 90proofprofessional
90proof keeps bluffing for me to "bump" this thread in other threads. not sure why you like torture.
yeah. a "few".
multiple people chronicled what was going on for years. it's a facile concept. it's really not even a controversial claim. except to baghdad bob jr.
quote:that has never been the issue so there's no point in even making this statement. it's more proof that you don't even understand what you are critiquing
the well-established and publicly-known data release/revision process
quote:you haven't shown any sort of "routine" at all. all you did was show an instance when one was revised upward and i showed that it was SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED BACK DOWN. still missing the forest for the trees
they are routinely revised UPWARD as well
quote:apart from the copious articles i cited that prove you are wrong, then yes. you are correct.
you have failed to show that downward revisions were more likely than upward.
quote:read the articles i cited. they explain clearly in language even you can understand what is going on.
What i'm showing pretty clearly is that you have no idea how to show that "the issue" is any more than a figment of your imagination
quote:
a few examples of downward revisions
yeah. a "few". quote:and this is why you belong in cat4 lib territory. there's no point in discussing this with someone who is beyond obstinate, recalcitrant, head in sand, nuh unh, la la land.
No they aren't
multiple people chronicled what was going on for years. it's a facile concept. it's really not even a controversial claim. except to baghdad bob jr.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:09 am to ShortyRob
Your on fire today Shorty well said 
Posted on 3/7/18 at 11:11 am to Eurocat
You spineless hack. You guys flip flop more than dying fish.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 1:50 pm to bfniii
quote:
that has never been the issue
then why were you whining just a few posts ago that the revisions were done "quietly"? and why have you been doing so the entire time? there has never been anything sneaky about the revisions timeline, and only someone who had no clue about them would have ever been surprised. nor are they done quietly, loudly, or otherwise. a press release by the agency announces them, full stop. been that way for a long time.
quote:
you haven't shown any sort of "routine" at all. all you did was show an instance when one was revised upward and i showed that it was SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED BACK DOWN. still missing the forest for the trees
haha, now you're just going to lie some more? i've given several examples of upward revisions, enough so far to equal your number of downward ones at minimum.
just scroll up on this very same page
quote:
apart from the copious articles i cited that prove you are wrong, then yes. you are correct.
you can keep saying this. still wrong. you've proven nothing. if you wish to try, you've been told what you'd need to do. you need to start with a comprehensive look at the data, not some examples of what you wanted to find you got by googling.
you can either get to actual work, or continue to beclown yourself. obviously you've shown that you won't bother.
that can only be that you are either too lazy to try, too scared to confront the possibility that you are wrong, too ignorant to know where to even get that data, or some combination of these.
quote:
read the articles i cited. they explain clearly in language even you can understand what is going on.
i've read your articles. no matter how much you wish otherwise, they don't do what you want to pretend they do. only one or two of them even try to make an argument for "doctoring", and they do it poorly. they don't even argue convincingly for the systematic bias you assert, let alone the nefarious motive.
quote:
here's no point in discussing this with someone who is beyond obstinate, recalcitrant, head in sand, nuh unh, la la land.
oh, i'm perfectly willing to be swayed by a sound argument based on a quality analysis of all available data. you just have no hope of providing any of that, and you wish desperately that you had the standing to speak authoritatively on the matter anyway. so sad.
quote:
it's really not even a controversial claim
you're right; it's not controversial. that's because the idea has no credibility on its face, except to gullible morons who want to believe it, and can be lied to because they have no prior knowledge of the process.
the kind of people that think the CBO can alter BEA source data.
the kind of people that actually believe obama never reached a quarter of 3% GDP growth, despite the fact that BEA data is public and easily found
the kind of people who blither on about quiet revisions after a few weeks, clearly not knowing about the public monthly schedule of releases
the kind of people who think that a google result of 3 downward revisions is proof of "doctoring", despite your examples being a tiny, tiny fraction of the scheduled revisions that get made all the time, and despite them usually being associated with upward revisions later.
the kind of people who think you can make sweeping, conclusory statements about revisions without taking a look at the entire set of revisions over time
in a nutshell, sheep who have no idea how to craft an empirical argument, but want to anyway
Page 6 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News