What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Discuss local, regional, state, federal, and world politics. Keep it classy, Cleveland.

What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 5th, 2020, 1:19 pm

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/02/04/what-rush-means-to-us-and-to-me-n2560697?utm_campaign=inarticle
What Rush Means To Us, And To Me By Kurt Schlichter|Posted: Feb 04, 2020

I am still stunned about the news that Rush shared at the end of his last broadcast. Rush said he plans on returning tomorrow
t’s a tribute to the great Rush Limbaugh that the reaction to his cancer diagnosis by the tens of millions of people he inspired was not to be devastated but to focus and to resolutely offer their thoughts and prayers in his fight. And he will fight – he’ll fight this like he has fought everything and everyone else that tried to take him out over the last third of a century. He is the archetypal conservative brawler, a no-apologies, no-excuses conservative who never submitted, never allowed himself to be domesticated and neutered by the elite. At the same time, he is gracious and a charity juggernaut. We love him for his strength and wit, and the left – to judge by its vicious, hateful glee over the news – has never forgiven him for either.
....For me, Rush was preaching to the choir, but then the choir needs preaching to too. Yet, his most vital function is to create new conservatives out of mushy libs who were that way purely out of habit. I can’t count how many other conservatives I’ve met who were liberal until they heard Rush. The lies the liberals told about him were often the first liberal lies these converts noticed – they tuned in expecting a monster and got a good natured, funny but uncompromising conservative who won millions of people over through the power of the common sense of his message. People wondered that if liberals were lying to them about Rush, what else were they lying about?
...My friend Andrew Breitbart, the other great non-governmental conservative visionary of the last 50 years, wrote about how he was converted and inspired by Rush. That’s the importance of Rush to our movement – he generates conservatives out of liberals and moderates, all by talking to them like they are adults.

I took a liberal with me to Rush's TV show where we both met Rush and had a couple of books signed by him. My friend became a conservative not long after this, and has thanked me for getting the opportunity to see Rush and talk to him in person.
I am looking forward to tomorrow's radio broadcast.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 8th, 2020, 2:53 pm

Like you MIchaels, I have always considered rush a frenemy. He was always interesting to listen to and though I found him to be mostly wrong on everything, he conveyed his stuff in an entertaining way. Hope he gets better so he can piss me off for another ten years.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Mrtazeman » February 8th, 2020, 7:26 pm

I wonder if Rush read his announcement using his nicotine stained fingers.

I am pretty jealous of him. Who would have thought that you could be a community school drop out druggie and make millions by spreading hate on the radio once the fairness doctrine abolished. I am going to miss him playing songs like Barack the magic negro and calling women sluts..

Rush Limbaugh was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris..
Real USA
Mrtazeman
 
Posts: 603
Joined: July 18th, 2013, 10:02 am

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Mrtazeman » February 8th, 2020, 8:17 pm

There is no conclusive proof that nicotine addictive.. And the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, and heart disease. This has been a public service announcement from Rush Limpballs...
Real USA
Mrtazeman
 
Posts: 603
Joined: July 18th, 2013, 10:02 am

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 9th, 2020, 11:00 am

Mrtazeman, why dont you post your comments here at where you work and show them to your employees. Tell everyone that your Mrtazeman or Real. Maybe you will be able to impress the people there of how much of a coward and a loser you really are.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Mrtazeman » February 9th, 2020, 2:18 pm

Michaels, what i am doing is what Rush does on a daily bases. Everything i said was true about him. Sad that A christian like u can take issue of me calling Rush a worthless shred of human debris but when Rush used those exact same to describe Kurt Cobain after his death, you were probably laughing... Go to your church and tell them u r a big ditto.. See what they say..
Real USA
Mrtazeman
 
Posts: 603
Joined: July 18th, 2013, 10:02 am

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 9th, 2020, 2:48 pm

Michaels, it is humorous that you support a coward, Cadet Bonespurs, Donald Trump who avoided service in Vietnam because of his bonespurs which incidentally could be examined today because they do not go away. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent ... m-vietnam/ https://www.businessinsider.com/donald- ... ar-2018-12

But more to the point you support a coward like Rush Limbaugh who never met a war he didn't like as long as he did not have to fight in it. He got out of Vietnam because of his pilonidial* cyst
And he popularized a song called Barack the Magic Negro on his radio show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_FAJUFutyw

Let's not forget Rush's cowardly slander of Sandra Fulke on his radio show when he called her a slut and a prostitute https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... block.html

So cut the crap. You worship at the alter of heroes with feet of shit. Then you attack Real who merely gives facts that you do not like about Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh is a symbol of racism and sexism. He is a bully who uses his pulpit like a coward to nourish evil tendencies that should simply starve to death and die a deserved death, like racism, sexism and bigotry in general.

Real is a hard working American who probably will not use his work time to address political issues because that time is for his employer. And from what he said, his employees would probably have applauded his post anyway.

Rush Limbaugh is a man who should be prayed for simply because he is a human being. But if the inevitable happens he should be mourned more for what he could have been than for what he was.


* pilonidal is spelled correctly. So I am taking that red herring away from you
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 10th, 2020, 11:30 am

Mrtazeman wrote:Michaels, what i am doing is what Rush does on a daily bases. Everything i said was true about him. Sad that A christian like u can take issue of me calling Rush a worthless shred of human debris but when Rush used those exact same to describe Kurt Cobain after his death, you were probably laughing... Go to your church and tell them u r a big ditto.. See what they say..


No Mrtazeman, what you are doing is nothing like what Rush does on a daily basis. And no, everything you said was not true about him. Everything you said is how you prefer to characterize him. That does not make what you said to be true. But what are we discussing anyhow? Your buddy Leftyg said you cant prove anything. By your usage of the word druggie, anybody who takes medication would be a "druggie", including you if you took an Aspirin. But I would like to hear your definition of human debris. You offered no definition for your use of the word, only mentioning Kurt Corbain without a reference. I remember some of your references to Ben Shapiro that I did address. So I will wait on that if you care to discuss it.
But back to the human debris comment. You and the rest of the Left delight in mocking those on the right. You especially revel in their tribulations and ignore their accomplishments even those who overcome their tribulations. But you admire anyone on the left regardless of what has happened in their lives. And you love to place your people, who overcome their tribulations on a pedestal and refer to them as heroes.
People normally acknowledge superior accomplishments by rewarding them and calling attention to them. Rush Limbaugh just joined a list of people who have been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And yet, you call Rush a worthless shred of human debris. Would you include all of the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom as being worthless shreds of human debris?
Normal people would have a difficult time reconciling two such disparate situations - Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients and human debris. People are usually remembered for the entirety of their lives and not just for one chapter. If you were to look at some of the Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients you could probably remember something considered as a negative in their past. Yet, they were not awarded the honor for the negative in their lives, but for the positive contributions that they have added to society. You and anybody else can read his accomplishments and take note of the variety of his contributions too in Wikipedia.
And lastly, there is your comment: "Sad that a Christian like you can take issue with..." I don't know why you would characterize defending somebody who has been unjustly characterized as being sad. If someone were to call you something that did not match your behavior and a neighbor stood up and tried to correct that injustice, you would not then say that your neighbor was sad for having done that.
My church knows that I am a fan of Rush Limbaugh and they do not have a problem with it.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 10th, 2020, 11:38 am

Leftyg, your insults of Rush have been previously addressed. Your insults to me are expected. Real is a big boy now and he can speak for himself. And your a big mouth that speaks for yourself.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 10th, 2020, 12:13 pm

Leftyg, your insults of Rush have been previously addressed. Your insults to me are expected. Real is a big boy now and he can speak for himself. And your a big mouth that speaks for yourself.


Michaels Real happens to be right.

Michaels the difference is I try only to tell the truth; you put your heroes on a pedestal that cannot be tampered with, even by facts. And all Real or I use is facts in our criticism of both Trump and Rush. So you can believe as you wish, but please give a single piece of evidence that what I wrote was false in any way. (And do not resort to that old canard of saying you have in the past and saying I should know)

You use circular thinking when you write:
Rush Limbaugh just joined a list of people who have been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And yet, you call Rush a worthless shred of human debris. Would you include all of the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom as being worthless shreds of human debris?
That is circular logic . The fact of Trump awarding it to him is not an argument. We think that Rush was a bad choice and the fact that Trump awarded him the honor is more an indictment of Trump's judgment than it is of anything else. Have you heard any of us on the left attack other Medal of Freedom winners? No, you probably have not, and for good reason: they advanced the quest of our nation and of humanity; they did not besmirch and attack the poor. Trump is a bully, and I think he used Limbaugh as validation for his own bullying. Trump's choices for any honor or for the Supreme court are not endorsements of those people so much as they are indictments of Trump's judgment.

You repeat yourself when you say:
Normal people would have a difficult time reconciling two such disparate situations - Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients and human debris.
That is again the point. If I took a terrible musician and declared him or her a virtuoso that would not render the musician a virtuosos; it would undermine my judgment in naming that person a virtuoso.

And the difference between you comment that all Medal of Freedom winners having made mistakes and Limbaugh is that most of his career has been built on attacking people and belittling them; it is not an aberration, it is his shtick.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 11th, 2020, 8:13 am

Leftyg,
It is your opinion about what Real wrote that is all. You both have negative opinions about Mr. Limbaugh. That is just a matter of fact, but they are still opinions. The anger of the left that has lashed out at Mr. Limbaugh regarding this award, is not because he is not justified to receive it for his accomplishments, it is because they do not like the man. There is no way that you can look at Rush's accomplishments, just in Radio alone, and say that he is not worthy to join the other two Radio recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Lowell Thomas (1977), Paul Harvey (2005), and Rush Limbaugh are the only recipients of this award. All three have made positive contributions to society beyond their accomplishments in radio. Mr. Thomas was a prolific writer. Paul Harvey was known for his short segments called The Rest of the Story, but he did write a couple of books. Rush Limbaugh developed what was to become and still is the number one radio talk show. Unlike Mr. Thomas and Mr. Harvey, Mr.
Limbaugh's show is three hours long, (which he has been doing for more than thirty years) and he has done his short morning updates which are still longer than the segments of Paul Harvey. Mr. Limbaugh is in both the Radio and the Broadcaster's Hall of Fame. He has won radio's highest award more than Mr. Harvey has. Mr. Limbaugh is also an accomplished writer. He has published adult books (both made The New York Times best sellers' list), and Children's books. His first children's' book, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims: Time-Travel with Exceptional Americans, received the Author of the Year Award from the Children's Book Council. He had a national television show from 1992 to 1996. And then there is the charity work that he has done: telethons for Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Marine Corp Law enforcement foundation, and most recently, the Tunnel to Towers foundation. But just looking at Mr. Limbaugh's radio accomplishments, Mr. Limbaugh has surpassed those of Paul Harvey.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 12th, 2020, 1:43 am

You make a good case for Limbaugh, kbut I just do not buy it, He is too baldly partisan for my taste. I admit he is a guilty pleasure; arguing with conservatives is a guilty pleasure. But I do not see a person who besmirched a young woman on a daily basis for her beliefs on health care to be much of a man. You excuse too much crude behavior in both Trump and Limbaugh.

But this was still a good effort on your part to make a case.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 12th, 2020, 12:56 pm

As you said Leftyg, he is to you a guilty pleasure. He has been as close to an conservative ideological purist as I have found in contemporary society. And as such, the focus has been on ideas, and not on those who present them. Good ideas for the good of the people are to be appreciated, pursued, and implemented.
Bad ideas are to be exposed, and explained as to why they are not good for the people. When the left present any of their ideas, if it is not accepted then they try to change the messenger but not the message.
I don't think any challenge to an idea of the left would be acceptable to you. Remember you said: " and though I found him to be mostly wrong on everything."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/rush-limbaugh-radio-genius-changed-political-landscape/
Limbaugh: A genius at radio
by Victor Davis Hanson
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Mrtazeman » February 12th, 2020, 11:10 pm

And as such, the focus has been on ideas, and not on those who present them.

That seems to be a theme for you. You call your self a Christian yet you support a president who has been hanging out with Jerry Epstien and cheats on his wife by banging porn stars.

You call Limbaugh the voice of conservatism but he is a businessman whos only job is to convince people like you to vote for republican. Case in point, why would Rush support GWB and Trump when they created HUGE deficits? Are conservatives suppose to be fiscally responsable and have good moral character?

With your philosophy, you must be ok with Roy Moore hooking up with kids just because he is a Republican

I guess its True there is a sucker born every minute..
Real USA
Mrtazeman
 
Posts: 603
Joined: July 18th, 2013, 10:02 am

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 13th, 2020, 2:03 am

Mrtazeman wrote:And as such, the focus has been on ideas, and not on those who present them.

That seems to be a theme for you. You call your self a Christian yet you support a president who has been hanging out with Jerry Epstien and cheats on his wife by banging porn stars. The name of this thread is: What Rush means to us.

You call Limbaugh the voice of conservatism but he is a businessman whos only job is to convince people like you to vote for republican. That is a very narrow and cynical point of view. I listen to Rush for a number of reasons and advice on who to vote for is not one of them.Case in point, why would Rush support GWB and Trump when they created HUGE deficits? He did not vote for deficits. He voted for a person to be the President of the United States. He talked about the deficit both then and now.He has stated that he did not think either party was serious about doing something about them. He spoke about President Trump addressing the deficit on yesterday's broadcast believing that President Trump has a plan to steer the country back to eliminating our deficit.Are conservatives suppose to be fiscally responsable and have good moral character? I think Rush is fiscally conservative, and as humans go, of good moral character. (Romans 3:23)

With your philosophy, You do not know nor care what my philosophy is and i do not support people just because they are called Republicans.you must be ok with Roy Moore hooking up with kids just because he is a Republican

I guess its True there is a sucker born every minute..
Your just an ignorant cynic and you will probably remain that way for the rest of your life.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Mrtazeman » February 13th, 2020, 7:08 am

Guess what Michaels, I listen to Rush the druggie as well


That is a very narrow and cynical point of view


.“First and foremost, I’m a businessman,” he told the biographer Zev Chafets in 2008. “My first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates. I happen to have great entertainment skills … that enables me to sell airtime.”

The name of this thread is: What Rush means to us.


US? I thought all of "US" are Americans...
Real USA
Mrtazeman
 
Posts: 603
Joined: July 18th, 2013, 10:02 am

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 13th, 2020, 8:59 am

Mrtazeman wrote:Guess what Michaels, I listen to Rush the druggie as well So you say, but then you also asked why he would support two presidents who created huge deficits when he has discussed this numerous times, and he talked about President Trump addressing the deficit problem on yesterday's broadcast. Did you miss these broadcasts? And when you say you listen to Rush, how do you mean that? Do you put on his program when he is scheduled? Do you happen to notice when he comes on. Or do you keep the radio station on where he broadcasts in the background like elevator music?
That is a very narrow and cynical point of view


.“First and foremost, I’m a businessman,” he told the biographer Zev Chafets in 2008. “My first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates. I happen to have great entertainment skills … that enables me to sell airtime.” All true, though I think the comment "so i can charge confiscatory ad rates is more of a dig to his critics. He still says from time to time when he takes a break for a commercial, that he will be right back after this obscene profit time out. You can, and do, interpret anything you want about him negatively. The article by Victor Davis Hanson talks about him being an entertainer, and no body denies that he is. Rush could choose to talk about anything he wanted to if it was just about making money. And several topics are discussed on his broadcasts including sports, but politics seems to be his strength and he is very knowledgeable about it.

The name of this thread is: What Rush means to us. That is us as in the group of people who like, listen to, and find listening to Rush to be worthwhile to them. It is not us as in the United States.


US? I thought all of "US" are Americans...
I don't think that the Democrats consider Republicans to be Americans
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 14th, 2020, 6:57 am

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/02/12/trumps-budget-is-a-brilliant-answer-to-democrat-socialism/
Trump’s Budget Is a Brilliant Answer to Democrat Socialism
[quote] ....[The way to use this capital can be found in Trump’s budget. Headline of a story I found on it: “Trump Budget Cuts Size of Federal Government, but Bolder Reforms Needed.” Now, this is Daily Signal story, and they’re chronicling what the attempts here to reduce the size of government are in Trump’s budget. They don’t think he goes far enough./quote]
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/trump-budget-cuts-size-federal-government-bolder-reforms-needed
Trump Budget Cuts Size of Federal Government, but Bolder Reforms NeededFeb 10th, 2020 31 min read
COMMENTARY BY
Justin Bogie
@JustinBogie
Senior Policy Analyst in Fiscal Affairs
Justin Bogie serves as Senior Policy Analyst in Fiscal Affairs at The Heritage Foundation.
Evidence of President Trump addressing the deficit. Evidence of Rush Limbaugh, the fiscal conservatiive, talking about the deficit.
NEXT
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Mrtazeman » February 14th, 2020, 7:54 am

Rush Limbaugh admits GOP's fiscal attacks on Obama were "bogus," defends Trump's deficit
Death of the deficit hawks: "Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore," says host who drove the Tea Party uprising

During Limbaugh’s show on Tuesday, a caller suggested that Republicans should nominate a young fiscal conservative instead of Trump, citing the rising deficit. Limbaugh dismissed the concerns, declaring that fiscal conservatism was basically a sham all along.

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/19/rush-l ... s-deficit/

Phony Christian and phony conservative.. Sucker
Real USA
Mrtazeman
 
Posts: 603
Joined: July 18th, 2013, 10:02 am

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 14th, 2020, 12:39 pm

Mrtazeman wrote:Rush Limbaugh admits GOP's fiscal attacks on Obama were "bogus," defends Trump's deficit
Death of the deficit hawks: "Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore," says host who drove the Tea Party uprising

During Limbaugh’s show on Tuesday, a caller suggested that Republicans should nominate a young fiscal conservative instead of Trump, citing the rising deficit. Limbaugh dismissed the concerns, declaring that fiscal conservatism was basically a sham all along.

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/19/rush-l ... s-deficit/

Phony Christian and phony conservative.. Sucker


At least we have a genuine ass, you, from which to compare all of your alleged phony people. Since your only looking to find holes in what I posted, you make your statements usually out of context, and run off to your next allegation. At least your reference provide some context and some backing to what you want to argue. But it is not a complete context either
From your reference, the Salon article.

"Death of the deficit hawks: "Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore," says host who drove the Tea Party uprising" - Rush has been pointing out that members of both parties have been seeking to get voters to get them in office, or to keep them in office by offering more than the other side. This keep up with the Jones' mentality has ignored the financial costs of their offerings. Since both parties have been doing it, the only logical conclusion is that neither party has been serious about the rising debt of the country. Rush uses the evidence of actions not taken to reduce debt as being the proof that neither party has been serious about reducing the debt. And that is what is meant by his statement that "nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore." That does not mean that he, (Rush), nor President Trump, are not fiscal conservatives. And this is the reason why it does not mean that. In the case of personal affairs, neither is financially in the red. Both are living within their means which is the basis of being a fiscal conservative.
In Rush's article he said this: "But I think that it is time Trump gets serious about this. I think it’s time Trump gets aggressive about spending. He has achieved a lot of his agenda. He has revived the economy. This is the time to get serious about discussion of bringing down this excessive spending. It’s got to stop at some point. We know this. We’ve known it our entire lives." That does not sound like a person who does not care about deficits. And this is just one quote from his recent broadcast. He has been saying this all along.
Next we have President Trumps' budget proposal. Trump’s budget request would cut spending by $4.4 trillion. Justin Bogie is the senior Policy Analyst in fiscal affairs at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Bogie says that the President's budget cuts the size of Federal Government, but believes that bolder reforms are still needed. In short, the President's budget proposal is a good step in the right direction, and that direction is to ending our debt as a country.
There is no hypocrisy here between President Trump or Rush Limbaugh. There are just complaints made by their critics that they can't be fiscal conservatives if the country is still in debt. That is their proof. They are saying because the end goal has not happened already is proof that we are not serious. Yet you have made this claim already regarding abortions, and you have had to backtrack on your claims when I have pointed out the progress and the seriousness of the Republican efforts there.
Now lets see, there have been a couple of things that have delayed President Trump from pursuing this goal until now. He has had to battle the determined opposition of your party just to deal with the wall and the border crisis. Then of course the Mueller investigation, and the impeachment trial. Yes, he has been successful in other goals and in other areas thus far with the distractions of your party. President Trump has to make the decisions on what to work on and when, which includes the things that he can control and those things that he can't control. The President is criticized by your party no matter where he starts or what he is working on, and always by degree. He has had to deal with North Korea, and the Middle East as well as with problems facing our economy.
Your party criticized him of his tax reform act by lying about it and saying it was only tax cuts for the rich, and it propelled our economy to where it is today. And now with his budget proposal, your party will claim that he is insensitve, and stealing money from the poor, while he makes cut's to certain areas in our budget. Your party complained about the spending, and now you will be complaining about the decrease in spending as proposed in the budget
Last edited by Michaels153 on February 25th, 2020, 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 15th, 2020, 3:17 pm

The problem with all this is that Trump created the largest deficit ever in a period of full employment https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardglec ... b52ce216e8

Obama's deficits were in a spiraling economy https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306 And when Clinton was president in an economy with full employment his deficits vanished https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306 And if you bother to read the chart, the Republicans took them back into the red with tax cuts. You do not cut taxes in periods of full employment; you begin to pay off debt. If Republicans had balanced the budget since Reagan was president, the national debt would be a small fraction of what it is. Republican administrations created about 55% of our national debt according to Jared Bernstein
US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png
US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png (20.61 KiB) Viewed 221 times
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 15th, 2020, 4:40 pm

https://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2020/02/13/dems-new-talking-point-on-the-trump-economy-obama-built-it-n2561241
Dems' New Talking Point on the Trump Economy: Obama Built It
Larry Elder|Posted: Feb 13, 2020

The "expert" predictions of economic disaster should Donald Trump win the 2016 election did not occur. Under Trump, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq composite have reached historical highs while unemployment for blacks and Hispanics have hit historical lows. In the wake of Trump's undeniable economic success, what is the 2020 Democratic Party argument for why voters should back their candidate over Trump?

The morning after Trump's election, Paul Krugman, economics professor and columnist for The New York Times, wrote: "Now comes the mother of all adverse effects -- and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks. So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened."

During the 2016 campaign, Mark Cuban, billionaire owner of the NBA Dallas Mavericks, predicted that a Trump victory could cause not just a minor stock market decline, but one as high as 20% or more: "When you're flip-flopping, when you're not sure what the candidate's going to say from one thing to another, that uncertainty potentially as the president of the United States -- that's the last thing Wall Street wants to hear. I can say with 100% certainty that there is a really good chance we could see a huge, huge correction. ... It could be 20%. You know, now, with high-frequency trading, accelerating, strong moves in any direction -- it could be worse than that."


CARTOONS | GARY VARVEL
VIEW CARTOON
So, Democrats and their media sympathizers now resort to a new talking point: Trump merely continued the economic growth that began under the Barack Obama administration.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, in a theme echoed by his Democratic rivals, said: "Donald Trump inherited a strong economy from Barack and me. Things were beginning to really move. And just like everything else he's inherited, he's in the midst of squandering it."

Are Biden and the Democrats right about the Obama economy?

To examine the Obama economy, one must compare apples to apples, similar economic conditions to similar economic conditions. Obama dealt with a severe economic downturn, as did President Ronald Reagan. Historically, the bigger the downturn, the bigger the economic bounce back. During the recession Obama faced, unemployment reached a high of 10%, while inflation and interest rates remained low. During the recession Reagan faced, unemployment reached 10.8%, prime interest rates rose to 20.5% and inflation hit 13.5%.

Obama raised taxes, spent nearly $1 trillion on a so-called stimulus plan, increased regulations and signed a new entitlement program known as "Obamacare." Reagan did the opposite. He decreased taxes and continued deregulation. Differences in results were stark. Obama's recovery, according to the Joint Economic Committee, averaged an inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 2.2% over the next 25 quarters. The average recovery following post-1960 economic slowdowns, which lasted more than 12 months, is 3.9%. Under President Ronald Reagan it was 4.8%. Obama was the first president ever to preside over an economic recovery in which not a single year of the economy grew at least 3%.


Obama's own economic team anticipated much higher growth. In February 2009, the Obama administration published its "Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. S. Government: Fiscal Year 2010." It said: "The Administration projects an economic recovery will begin in the second half of the year sparked by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. By the end of the year, real growth is expected to have reached 3-1/2 percent at an annual rate, a pace that is maintained through 2010. In 2011-2013, the rate of growth in real GDP is projected to accelerate to around 4-1/2 percent annually for several quarters."

The economy under Obama did not come close to meeting his team's projections. Trump boasts about "historic lows" in unemployment for blacks. But in January 2016, black liberal commentator Tavis Smiley admitted: "Sadly, and it pains me to say this, over the last decade, black folk in the era of Obama have lost ground in every major economic category. Not one, two or three, but every major economic category, black Americans have lost ground."

Again, the big economic downturns historically produce big economic upturns. The media insist on calling the economic conditions Obama dealt with the "Great Recession," even though by many metrics, Reagan faced a more serious "Great Recession." But, unlike the economy under Obama, Reagan oversaw what should be called The Great Recovery.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 15th, 2020, 5:33 pm

The economy under Obama did not come close to meeting his team's projections. Trump boasts about "historic lows" in unemployment for blacks. But in January 2016, black liberal commentator Tavis Smiley admitted: "Sadly, and it pains me to say this, over the last decade, black folk in the era of Obama have lost ground in every major economic category. Not one, two or three, but every major economic category, black Americans have lost ground."


Michaels, shouting does not make you right. Facts make a person right. And here are some: In March 2010 the Black Unemployment rate was 16.8% https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006 In January 2017 it was 7.5%. Now it is 6.0%. It dropped by 93,% under Obama; it dropped 1.5% since. So you really do not have a point. Your problem is you only read what you want and evidently you do not want to admit the facts which are that "yeah Trump is helping; he hasn't really screwed up yet, but Obama did the heavy lifting".

GDP growth is about the same under Obama and Trump. https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 ... ince-1990/, both have growth ranging from about 1.8-2,9%. And Trump promised 4-5% growth or more. What happened to that; he did not reach his projections. Why are you giving him a pass? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-t ... 2019-09-27

And economies were different in 1981; growth was much greater. Jimmy Carter had growth as good as Ronald Reagan per year https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-gdp-growth-3306008 That is a fact. Carter created over ten million jobs in his one term https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation ... nt-3863218 So your information is way off Michaels

Your idolatry of Trump is a sign of fascism. Trump took an improving situation and kept it up https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation ... nt-3863218

Why Larry Elder would lie like that I do not know. He probably thinks only right wing nuts read his lies and will believe anything he says. https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation ... nt-3863218
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 15th, 2020, 7:02 pm

? So everyone is wrong except you? Larry Elder is saying what others have said and what i have previously posted. I have quoted other Afro-American writers who have stated what Travis Smiley said and you either ignore it, or call them liars. President Reagan once said that if fascism comes it will come by liberalism. You pull the fascism label and throw it at conservatives and Republicans whenever they say anying you disagree with. But thats okay by you. There is nothing wrong with you labeling people and/or groups. Pointing out a spelling error of yours is an adhominem attack. You calling people quoting government statistics that you dont agree with as fascits - nothing wrong with it. The difference between Obama and Trump in projections is in how far apart they were from what happened in reality and in the overall success of President Trump Historically.
Obama projects historical memories of failures. President Trump is racking up victories and successes that are meaningful to Americans today and that is what the polls are saying.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 15th, 2020, 8:26 pm

Michaels, you are wrong and I suspect you have been lied to and that you are the victim of many lies. I did not give opinion; I gave readily available facts, one after the other. It does not matter who said it, an African American writer, either Tavis Smiley or Larry Elder. It is wrong. You have a right to your own opinions but not your own facts. Larry Elder lied to you. Recently he also said that the Central Park Five were guilty. You probably believe that too. Elder, like Bob Frantz, is a serial liar. Sorry, you do not get to make things up, and other people's fantasies are not admissible either.

You did not quote any statistics with which I do not agree, but you quoted half truths that do not feed the bulldog. I am very aware that African-American unemployment is at an all-time low. My explanation simply nuanced it because it is absolutely true that Barack Obama's administration dropped Black unemployment from a high of 16.8% to 7.5%. President Trump is merely continuing the Obama recovery, but you have been told by liars like Larry Elder and Bob Frantz that Trump, like a woke rooster, saw the sun rise and thought he, Trump, had set it in the sky. Elder and others enable him into believing this crap and you buy it too. There is not an alternative set of facts. There are just facts. People can interpret them differently, but for God sake Michaels, take an inventory. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal Reserve of St Louis and the Balance all say I am right and that YOU and Larry are telling half truths.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Mrtazeman » February 18th, 2020, 1:25 pm

Obama projects historical memories of failures


I don't know what world you live in. I am not saying Obama was the best president but What key economic figures didn't Obama approve?
Real USA
Mrtazeman
 
Posts: 603
Joined: July 18th, 2013, 10:02 am

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 19th, 2020, 9:20 am

leftyg wrote:Michaels, you are wrong No, Leftyg, I really am not wrong, but as always, your entitled to believe what you want..and I suspect you have been lied to and that you are the victim of many lies. I did not give opinion; I gave readily available facts, The problem here Leftyg, is that if the FACTS do not appear right then they need to be checked. This is done all the time in research, which you know.
You present these facts that don't appear to you to be problematic. But I have already shown you in previous posts, using the Bureau of Labor statistics and other sources how that both job creation and unemployment rates were false. I am working on presenting an outline summary of the various events in a timeline to show it's impact. But I am currently engaged in a ton of work right now that comes first, and does not give me much spare time from which to do this.
one after the other. It does not matter who said it, an African American writer, either Tavis Smiley or Larry Elder. It is wrong. You have a right to your own opinions but not your own facts. The same to you Leftyg. You do not have the right to your own facts, but you sure act like you do. You do not prove Travis Smiley or Larry Elder to be wrong, you just claim that they are. Larry Elder lied to you. Recently he also said that the Central Park Five were guilty. ? Did he say anything about the Cleveland Indians too?You probably believe that too. Elder, like Bob Frantz, is a serial liar. What? Sorry, you do not get to make things up, I do not make things up.and other people's fantasies are not admissible either.

You did not quote any statistics with which I do not agree, but you quoted half truths that do not feed the bulldog. I never heard of that expression before.I am very aware that African-American unemployment is at an all-time low. My explanation simply nuanced it because it is absolutely true that Barack Obama's administration dropped Black unemployment from a high of 16.8% to 7.5%. Black unemployment is one of the areas I will present to you in more detailPresident Trump is merely continuing the Obama recovery, That is the most ridiculous assertion that you and the rest of the Left and Democrats in general could make. I will point that out to youbut you have been told by liars like Larry Elder and Bob Frantz that Trump, like a woke rooster, saw the sun rise and thought he, Trump, had set it in the sky. Elder and others enable him into believing this crap and you buy it too. There is not an alternative set of facts. There are just facts. People can interpret them differently, but for God sake Michaels, take an inventory. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Leftyg, I have used the Bureau to show you the false claims of Obamas job creation and unemployment figures before. I will even provide the links to when and where i did this. But as I said, I have a lot to address at work right now.
This is just an acknowledgement to you to explain this. But you could review the October 2nd, 2018 post in 'As Dow Sets Another Record High, thread
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3742#p45132 You could review this, If you want, until I can get back to you.
the federal Reserve of St Louis and the Balance all say I am right and that YOU and Larry are telling half truths.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 20th, 2020, 4:07 pm

The problem here Leftyg, is that if the FACTS do not appear right then they need to be checked. This is done all the time in research, which you know.
You present these facts that don't appear to you to be problematic. But I have already shown you in previous posts, using the Bureau of Labor statistics and other sources how that both job creation and unemployment rates were false. I am working on presenting an outline summary of the various events in a timeline to show it's impact. But I am currently engaged in a ton of work right now that comes first, and does not give me much spare time from which to do this.


Where in God's Name did you ever prove that "job creation sand unemployment numbers were false?" Who got into the Bureau of Labor Statistics and screwed things up? Well when you have the time, I will be waiting

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. There are no alternative facts
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 21st, 2020, 4:13 pm

I gave you the link already.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 21st, 2020, 10:52 pm

I gave you the link already.
Would it kill ya to give it again?
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 22nd, 2020, 9:31 am

You know Leftyg this only shows that you dont bother to really read my posts. It makes sense because regardless what the topic you seem to pick a small piece to focus your objection. My link, that you did not see (?) was in this thread, the 2/19th. post near the bottom. It is the view topic link to my previous post on this topic.
Now before you embarrass yourself by denouncing everything in the link, prove any of your reflexive protestations are wrong. Dont say my sources are biased, that they dont have a point or that they are meaningless. You prove that the information is wrong. I will respond soon as i am almost finished with the work that i have to do.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » February 22nd, 2020, 1:01 pm

You know Leftyg this only shows that you dont bother to really read my posts. It makes sense because regardless what the topic you seem to pick a small piece to focus your objection. My link, that you did not see (?) was in this thread, the 2/19th. post near the bottom. It is the view topic link to my previous post on this topic.
Now before you embarrass yourself by denouncing everything in the link, prove any of your reflexive protestations are wrong. Dont say my sources are biased, that they dont have a point or that they are meaningless. You prove that the information is wrong. I will respond soon as i am almost finished with the work that i have to do.


The problem is your post was so blasted long and convoluted and OLD viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3742#p45132. The information was from MaY 4, 2012. The principle argument was about Labor Force Participation Rate which shows you have not been looking at my posts either because I write about it all the time. The right obsessed over the dropping labor force participation rate during Obama's term. And the concern is bogus. A look at historical Labor Force Participation shows that before 1956 the Labor Force Participation rate had never exceeded 59%. Then for a very short time it reached 60%. Then two things happened in the late sixties which caused it to rise: women joined the work force and the baby boomers reached working age https://www.multpl.com/us-labor-force-p ... by-yearaby . Here is a chart that shows how profound an effect the Baby boom had on the working population https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/li ... rates-year

Boomers (like me) were old enough to work, and by 1970 the number went over 60 for LFP. That was a function of Demographics. Michaels there were more babies born in the fifties than there are being born today by a wide margin. https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/li ... rates-year That should ring a bell. Now as older Baby Boomers begin to retire, there simply are not enough people to replace them. My younger brother, for example, worked for 40 some years in a well paid but dangerous environment. He retired bout five years ago to a comfortable pension. My cousin did the same thing. The point is why should they work? They worked hard all their lives and decided to enjoy their remaining years

IN right wing world they seized on this number as proof that Obama was a failure even though he was driving unemployment down . And Limbaugh, in his weak analysis, said that Obama got the unemployment rate back to what it was when he took office which is a lie. When Obama took office , the unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office, and he took office in the teeth of the subprime meltdown.

Any way Michales. If you want to have a discussion please do not veil it in a bunch of obfuscation. In other words state a point and defend it, and stay away from global analysis and cut and paste,
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » February 28th, 2020, 11:34 am

My claim #1, is that the actual U-3 unemployment rate during the Obama Presidency was higher than reported.

Grounds: A. https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/?s=Obama%27s+Orwellian+Unemployment+numbers Obama;s Orwellian Unemployment Numbers
May 4, 2012.
Example #1: "Unemployment went down one tenth of a percent from 8.2% to 8.1%, but the number of people who left the labor force is at an all time high.
From February through April, the number of jobs created per month continued to decline and in spite of this decline, the unemployment rate
went from 8.2% to 8.1%"
B. Reuters: 'April Hiring Slows, Jobless Rate falls to 8.1%
Reuters wrote: "the unemployment rate tucked a tenth of a point lower to a three year low as people left the workforce.
C. CNBC Repoted: "Though the headline number indicated job creation, the total employment level for the month 169,000." Total employment,
meaning more people lost jobs than got them. And yet the unemployment rate went down. The only way that can happen is
for people to be leaving the job force, the labor force, the job market.
D. AEI: The Awful April Jobs Report: Is the A'RealA' Unemployement Rate 11.1%? -- James Pethokoukis
James Pethokoukis, the economic analyst of the American Enterprise Institute, points out: "if the size of the US Labor Force as a share of the
total population was the as it was when Barack Obama took office...the U-3 unemployment rate would be 11.0% not 8.1

Contradiction: Question (?), If the unemployment rate drops, that is supposed to indicate an increase of the employed. But as the AP reported: AP 'US Worker Output fell in Q1 by Most In A Year' So how does more workers result in less output?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/#21e0b1d9cdc3
E. Obama's Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession's On The Way
Example #2 "The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last Friday that 114,000 new jobs were created last month, according to its Establishment Survey of
Business Payrolls. (This is the source emphasized by the Obama administration) ...Moreover, the BLS also reported on Friday that the number
of full time jobs declined by 216,000 last month as economist John R Lott Jr. of the American Enterprise Institute also noted. The unemploy-
ment rate declined to 7.8% only because of a reported "surprise" September spurt of 873,000 jobs in the Separate Household Survey of Families
across the nation.

Contradiction: So what we see is a[ discrepancy between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its Establishment Survey of Business Payrolls, [Again, this is what
had been emphasized by the Obama administration] and The Household Survey
F. https://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
Census 'faked' 2012 Election Jobs Report By John Crudele - November 18, 2013
"In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply - raising eyebrows
from Wall Street to Washington.
The decline was from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September. (Normally fluctuations in the unemployment rate occur by going up
or down a tenth of a percent)
"...Just two (2) years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the
unemployment report, ...and knowledgeable sources say the deception went beyond that one employee.- that it escalated at the time
President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today (11/18/13). The Census employee caught faking the results was Julius
Buckmon. Mr. Buckmon told Mr. Crudele (the writer of this article), in an interview that he was told to make up information by higher ups at
Census.
The Household Survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate is considered a scientific poll with each household interviewed representing
5,000 homes in the US.
"Mr. Buckmon, it turns out was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers.
[by making up survey results - and essentially creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs - Mr. Buckmon's actions could have lowered
the jobless rate.] Mr. Buckmon said that he filled out surveys for people he could not reach by phone, or who didn't answer their doors.

Remember: The 'surprise" September spurt of 873,000 jobs in the Household Survey represents more than 3X the
highest number of jobs created in any one month for President Obama thus far. And Mr. Buckmon, as it was reported
conducted 3 times as many household interviews as his peers. And also remember, that each interview represents 5,000
homes in the U.S.


Mr. Crudele also wrote that during the 2010 Census report, he suspected and wrote in a number of columns that Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers. Mr. Crudele suspected that this turnover of employees was done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being reported each month.

The Unemployment rate can go down by people leaving the roles of the unemployed and acquiring jobs or as shown in the first example, the unemployment rate can go down by people leaving the job force by being fired, losing their job, or just giving up looking for work because they cant find a job. When people involuntarily leave the work force and the unemployment rate goes down, the unemployment rate is stating that there are fewer people who are unemployed, when actually, in this case there are more people who were unemployed not less
In the second example more people allegedly acquired jobs which resulted in an anomalous decline in the unemployment rate. When evidence was found that an employee was caught falsifying data that was used to determine the unemployment rate, it demonstrated that the lower unemployment rate in that example was false and that by eliminating the false data, it would result in a higher unemployment rate number.
Both examples demonstrate that my claim is accurate, that the actual U-3 unemployment rate during the Obama presidency was higher than reported.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » March 1st, 2020, 1:26 pm

Your source by Peter Ferrara entitled "Obama's Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession's On The Way" was from October 11 2012 https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferra ... eae669cdc3 when the Bureau of Labor statistics had unemployment at 7.8 %. Rather than a recession the unemployment rate dropped by 3.1% to 4.7% by Jan. 2017 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

So your source gave a bad prediction based on a bad analysis. And rumors spread by Rush Limbaugh do not constitute evidence of any kind.

As I told you Labor Force Participation is dependent on the age of the workforce, and the Baby Boomers are retiring and that lowers Labor Force Prticipation https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/publicat ... t-wave.jsp Michaels that is a simple fact. And any discrepancy between September and October of 21012, has nothing to do with the fact that unemployment dropped over three more points in Obama's second term. It sounds like you are grasping for a straw here.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » March 1st, 2020, 6:53 pm

[quote="leftyg"][size=150]Your source by Peter Ferrara entitled "Obama's Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession's On The Way" was from October 11 2012 You can remove Mr. Ferraras article but you cannot dismiss the evidence discovered in Mr. Crudeles article. And that data alone substantiates my claim.
My claim did not state only to apply to a specific period, nor to only a specific term.
Read my claim again. You have not negated my claim.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby leftyg » March 1st, 2020, 11:02 pm

Michaels, Politifact had a terrific answer for your question. I will put up their verdict on this subject. It seems that Elizabeth Hasselbeck and had been saying the same thing that Crudele was saying.
They wrote: Our ruling

Hasselbeck said Julius Buckmon was "on one side of the scale" and his fabricated interviews helped push the unemployment rate lower in September 2012. Buckmon did not work for the Census Bureau in 2012 and even if he had, people familiar with the workings inside the bureau doubt it would have made a difference. If he had slanted all of his reports to show a brighter employment picture, he would have likely been found out. If he slanted a smaller number, it would have no statistical impact.

We rate the claim False.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... er-admits/

They go into depth about how the timeline was wrong and how too many interviewers would have had to be in volved to pass the ruse off. So probably on its very face it is wrong. Read the entire article. It is quite convincing.

leftyg
 
Posts: 5535
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » March 2nd, 2020, 12:49 pm

leftyg wrote:Michaels, Politifact had a terrific answer for your question. I will put up their verdict on this subject. It seems that Elizabeth Hasselbeck and had been saying the same thing that Crudele was saying.
They wrote: Our ruling

Hasselbeck said Julius Buckmon was "on one side of the scale" and his fabricated interviews helped push the unemployment rate lower in September 2012. Buckmon did not work for the Census Bureau in 2012 and even if he had, people familiar with the workings inside the bureau doubt it would have made a difference. If he had slanted all of his reports to show a brighter employment picture, he would have likely been found out. If he slanted a smaller number, it would have no statistical impact.

We rate the claim False.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... er-admits/

They go into depth about how the timeline was wrong and how too many interviewers would have had to be in volved to pass the ruse off. So probably on its very face it is wrong. Read the entire article. It is quite convincing.

The problem Leftyg is Politifact focused on Elizabeth Hasselbeck instead of on Mr. Crudele's interview. And Politifact did not quote Ms. Hasslebeck, it inferred her comments to imply that she stated the employee, Julius Buckmon worked in 2012. Politifact said: "The problem for Hasselbeck is that Buckmon wasn’t working for the Census Bureau in 2012. Mr. Crudele's article was published in November 2013, and in that article he said..."Just two years before the presidential election, [that would be 2010] the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report,
...And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

(Now Leftyg, here is the important information that Politifact ignored)

Quoted from the article: "...Census never publicly disclosed the falsification. Nor did it inform Labor that its data was tainted.
“Yes, absolutely they should have told us,” said a Labor spokesman. “It would be normal procedure to notify us if there is a problem with data collection.”

Census appears to have looked into only a handful of instances of falsification by Buckmon, although more than a dozen instances were reported, according to internal documents. [CENSUS NEVER PUBLICLY DISCLOSED THE FALSIFICATION. CENSUS DID NOT INFORM THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS (INTERNALLY)

In one document from the probe, Program Coordinator Joal Crosby was ask in 2010, [When Mr. Buckmon worked] “Why was the suspected … possible data falsification on all (underscored) other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated by the region?” [Yes Leftyg, why wasn't all of possible data falsification on all other survey work for which data falsification was suspected not investigated? It would seem then that Census was not diligent about carrying out their job responsibilities.
On one document seen by The Post, Crosby hand-wrote the answer: “Unable to determine why an investigation was not done for CPS,” or the Current Population Survey — the official name for the unemployment report.
With regard to the Consumer Expenditure survey, only four instances of falsification were looked into, while 14 were reported.

Politifact also said this:
the typical interviewer handles between 35 and 55 households. That would translate to anywhere between about 1,000 and 1,700 interviewers to cover 60,000 households.

Mr. Crudele reported from his investigation, that Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US. [And, Mr. Crudele also reported this: "Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said." [so taking from the low end, lets suppose that the information revealed from the interview is correct, and that Mr. Buckmon did indeed conduct three times as many interviews as his fellow employees: then Mr. Buckmon's falsification of data affected 525,000 households. (3 X 35 x 5000)

Politifact goes on to say this:
"Even if an interviewer made up all of his or her interviews," Abraham said, "each interviewer's share of the full sample is small enough that it would be rather unlikely for the made-up interviews to have affected the topside unemployment numbers at all
"
Politifact referred to the actions of "an interviewer" as in one person. But this is what was revealed in Mr. Crudele's interview: "...And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked."

But Politifact asserts: :it would be rather unlikely for the made-up interviews to have affected the topside unemployment numbers at all.:" But Politifact does not mention how much each interview accounts for 5,000 households, and Politifact does not know how many others beginning in 2010 were involved like Mr. Buckmon, and Politifact does not know about how much was affected by the at least ten incidents not investigated by Census. And with all that they don't know, they said "it would be rather unlikely for the made-up interviews to have affected the topside unemployment numbers at all. They did not say that the made up interviews could not have affected the "topside employment" And, in Mr. Crudele's article he reported this:
But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed."

Here is one of the ways that Mr. Buckmon's work in 2010 could have affected the unemployment numbers leading up to the election. The addition of Mr. Buckmon's false data could have established or lead to establishing a false baseline in the unemployment report that additional falsification by others simply continued. It was believed that Obama did not think he could get reelected if the unemployment rate remained at or above 8%. So when the unemployment rate goes below the magical number of 8% the month before the election, it implies that drastic measures were taken because the other discreet measures had not accomplished the goal that Obama was seeking. Speculation aside, Politifact's insufficient reasoning aside, nothing offered reasonably explains the anomalous disparity in the Household Survey for the September spurt. And I said nothing reasonable explains this because that September "spurt" was more than 3 times the size of any previous job creation report for Obama in that year.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: What Rush Means to Us by Kurt Schlichter

Postby Michaels153 » March 2nd, 2020, 9:15 pm

My claim #2, is that the actual number of jobs created during the Obama Presidency was lower than reported.

Grounds A. https://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
1. "Just two years before the presidential election the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report."
2. "Knowledgeable sources say the deception went beyond that one employee."
3. "It escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelction in 2012 and continues today (11/18/2013)
The timeline of fabrications begins from at least 2010 through 11/18/2013
4. "During the 2010 Census report, the Census was inexplicably hiring and firing temporary workers. Mr Crudele suspected that this turnover
of employees was done purposely to boost the number of new jobs being reported each month.

Grounds B. https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/#21e0b1d9cdc3
1.
But even the actually story the BLS is telling is not good. In addition to all of the above, the supposed September increase in Household Survey jobs was mostly in what the BLS calls part time work for economic reasons. The BLS explains, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.” That applied to 582,000 of the supposed new jobs reported by the September Household Survey, and a total of 8.6 million Americans last month.

2. The increase of part time jobs during the Obama presidency included job sharing. Employers cut back the hours of some employees to avoid the paying of benefits. This led to people who had their hours cut to look for more hours and there were workers who were willing to share what used to be a full time job of 40 hours.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/01/13/obamacares-impact-companies-cut-hours-for-part-time-workers/
Companies Are Cutting Part-Time Workers' Hours. Blame Obamacare? By Dan Diamond ,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/
Yes, Some Companies Are Cutting Hours In Response To ‘Obamacare’ By Ben Casselman
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-23/top-white-house-economist-admits-94-all-new-jobs-under-obama-were-part-time
Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time
By Tyler Durden
https://www.investing.com/news/economy/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057
Investing.com - Financial Markets Worldwide

Question: If a full time worker of 40 hours per week, works more hours during a week, is that worker working more than one job? No, the worker is not considered to be working more than one job. It is considered overtime, but not working more than one job.
Question: If a full time job of 40 hours per week is transformed to where the work is split between two workers is that now two jobs? Is this the creation of a second job or is it just changing the original job to where two people are being paid to do the same work that one person did previously? The BLS recognizes part time work for economic reasons, but does not carry a specific statistic for job sharing.
Job sharing is one way Obama could maintain the deception that he was creating more jobs than he actually did. Because the one job of 40 hours per week was there before Obama came into office, and now it is transformed becuase of the effect his policies had on the economy. Just like the deception that more jobs were added when the unemployment rate dropped. (as was previously discussed in the last post and in the first claim)

The fabrication of data that was entered into the jobs reports, and the recognizing of job sharing as two jobs are two ways that the number of jobs created during the Obama presidency were falsely represented. The actual number of jobs created during the Obama presidency were lower than reported.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Michaels153 and 1 guest

cron