One Graph Says It All.

[healthmyths]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Say Rabbi, could you explain your graph? Exactly what is it saying? Does it go about explaining the difference in severity of the economic downturn or how many workers were effected or how many lives were dramatically changed?
Thanks in advance!

I never read any president even Carter/Clinton make ANY comments like these that Obama has made:

Believes in a .."single payer health system"... and in so doing puts 400,000 people out of work and reduces annually $100 billion in tax revenue.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program" Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.
So if HE believes in a single payer that means HE WANTS 400,000 people become unemployed by putting out of business 1,300 companies.

Believes in bankrupting ANY company.."if somebody wants to build coal utility plant it’s just that it will bankrupt them"

Believes that "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

Believes gas prices should go up... Obama said I'd like higher gas prices, just not so quickly" LiveLeak.com - Obama: Id like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
and backs that belief hiring Energy secretary Chu, who said in 2008...
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Believes that our military should be demeaned by statements that call our troops nazis or that they methodically bomb villages killing civilians"!

Believes our EPA should be involved in managing dust on country roads or fining a Wyoming welder $75,000 a day for building pond on his property"

Believes in LYING to pass legislation"..Remember "you can keep your doctor"??
Believes there were 46 million uninsured as the facts point out there were less then 4 million"!

These are all statements Obama has made and has been working to fulfill his beliefs!
NOT ONE statement was a positive uplifting encouraging statement. Every one was a negative.

While Reagan/Bush/etc. NEVER made such statements EVEN though they may have believed because as President one of the jobs is to LEAD the country!

You can not lead a country when you see nothing but negatives for the country and as Obama has expressed these are his preferences!

 

[The Rabbi]

I appear to have rendered the Rabbi incapable of a relevant response.

Your question is idiotic. Thus no response.

Why, specifically, is it idiotic? Is the idea that proof of cause and effect in an argument is important idiotic?

When I posted the increase in AIDs cases after Reagan was elected what was your response?

1. That to imply that was Reagan's fault was idiotic, because no cause and effect was shown, or,

2. That I had made a good point, and anyone who rejected it for lack of cause and effect was in fact being idiotic?

Are you actually comparing economic conditions to AIDS? You're desperate, poor thing.

 

[JoeNormal]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Say Rabbi, could you explain your graph? Exactly what is it saying? Does it go about explaining the difference in severity of the economic downturn or how many workers were effected or how many lives were dramatically changed?
Thanks in advance!

I never read any president even Carter/Clinton make ANY comments like these that Obama has made:

Believes in a .."single payer health system"... and in so doing puts 400,000 people out of work and reduces annually $100 billion in tax revenue.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program" Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.
So if HE believes in a single payer that means HE WANTS 400,000 people become unemployed by putting out of business 1,300 companies.

400,000 people huh? Is this the number of people employed by our greedy, inefficient health insurance industry? Basically, the paper pushers? Good riddance!

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

One graph that says it all...

...AIDs cases in the US after Reagan is elected President:

Wow, look at that correlation! By the rules and logic of this thread, we can conclude:
Ronald Reagan causes AIDS!

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Let's graph Apples and Oranges!

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

One graph that says it all...

...AIDs cases in the US after Reagan is elected President:

Wow, look at the correlation. By the rules and logic of this thread, we can conclude:
Bill Clinton cures AIDS!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your question is idiotic. Thus no response.

Why, specifically, is it idiotic? Is the idea that proof of cause and effect in an argument is important idiotic?

When I posted the increase in AIDs cases after Reagan was elected what was your response?

1. That to imply that was Reagan's fault was idiotic, because no cause and effect was shown, or,

2. That I had made a good point, and anyone who rejected it for lack of cause and effect was in fact being idiotic?

Are you actually comparing economic conditions to AIDS? You're desperate, poor thing.

Ah so now you're saying it's IDIOTIC to make a comparison where cause and effect CANNOT be shown?

Well, that's what your original chart does. Idiot.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

More facts. Reagan's and Obama's approaches were diametrically opposite. One put people to work. One put people on welfare.
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

From the article:

"Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again..."​

Where did the author get his data? On the BLS website, the data for 2011 does not show double digit inflation. Was the author actually using PPI instead of CPI for forecasting?

Another odd claim from this author...

"Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently."​

Really? Inflation was "never to be heard from again until recently"?

 

[Erand7899]

You haven't proven that 1982 is comparable to 2009.

That's true. I haven't proven that cake tastes like yogurt either. But you haven't disproven that Reagan's policies resulted in more Americans working while Obama's policies have resulted in fewer Americans working. Which is the subject here.

You haven't offered enough of argument to need disproving. For that matter, I don't think you've even offered proof that the graph you posted was accurate, if you really want to get down to it.

The entire 81 - 82 recession occurred on Reagan's watch. Who are we blaming those job losses on?

The 81 - 82 recession was an intentional recession, brought about by the Fed. The only way to squeeze double digit inflation out of the economy. We can blame those job losses on the Fed. We can blame the great recovery on Reagan and his economic policies.

The simple fact is that government cannot fix any economy. All it can do is make the economic environment as favorable as possible so that the private sector can fix the economy. Reagan did that and the economy rebounded. Obama has done the exact opposite and the economy has not rebounded. Who would have guessed that he got the same results that FDR got, when he tried the same tactics. It doesn't work.

 

[The Rabbi]

One graph that says it all...

...AIDs cases in the US after Reagan is elected President:

Wow, look at that correlation! By the rules and logic of this thread, we can conclude:
Ronald Reagan causes AIDS!

So you're maintaining that government policy has no effect on the economy. Is that it?

 

[The Rabbi]

More facts. Reagan's and Obama's approaches were diametrically opposite. One put people to work. One put people on welfare.
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

From the article:

"Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again..."​

Where did the author get his data? On the BLS website, the data for 2011 does not show double digit inflation. Was the author actually using PPI instead of CPI for forecasting?

Another odd claim from this author...

"Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently."​

Really? Inflation was "never to be heard from again until recently"?

Is it shocking to you that when the author references the Producer Price Index, he gets his information from info about the Producer Price Index?

We are seeing the beginnings of a resurgence of inflation.
Producer price gain offers cautionary note on inflation | Reuters

This was predictable by the steep increase in the money supply over the last 5 years.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

According to the rules and logic of this thread:
Ice Cream causes Polio!

 

[The Rabbi]

According to the rules and logic of this thread:
Ice Cream causes Polio!

OK, so you're going with the "government policies on regulation and taxation don't affect the economy."
We got it.
You're a fucking retard.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

More facts. Reagan's and Obama's approaches were diametrically opposite. One put people to work. One put people on welfare.
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

From the article:

"Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again..."​

Where did the author get his data? On the BLS website, the data for 2011 does not show double digit inflation. Was the author actually using PPI instead of CPI for forecasting?

Another odd claim from this author...

"Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently."​

Really? Inflation was "never to be heard from again until recently"?

Is it shocking to you that when the author references the Producer Price Index, he gets his information from info about the Producer Price Index?

It is shocking to me that he would use PPI for forecasting, which is how he reached his double-digit number.
It is not shocking to me that you didn't know that.

We are seeing the beginnings of a resurgence of inflation.
Producer price gain offers cautionary note on inflation | Reuters

This was predictable by the steep increase in the money supply over the last 5 years.

*Yawn* PPI is volatile.

Wake me when your inflation apocalypse is real.

 

[The Rabbi]

From the article:

"Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again..."​

Where did the author get his data? On the BLS website, the data for 2011 does not show double digit inflation. Was the author actually using PPI instead of CPI for forecasting?

Another odd claim from this author...

"Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently."​

Really? Inflation was "never to be heard from again until recently"?

Is it shocking to you that when the author references the Producer Price Index, he gets his information from info about the Producer Price Index?

It is shocking to me that he would use PPI for forecasting, which is how he reached his double-digit number.
It is not shocking to me that you didn't know that.

We are seeing the beginnings of a resurgence of inflation.
Producer price gain offers cautionary note on inflation | Reuters

This was predictable by the steep increase in the money supply over the last 5 years.

*Yawn* PPI is volatile.

Wake me when your inflation apocalypse is real.

By then it will be too late.
Of course since you think government policies dont have any effect then there isnt much we can do about it.
Simp.

 

[g4racer]

Reaganomics drove California into the ground and would have done the same thing to the country if it were not for the two parties working together. If the Dems had done just a fraction to the of the things to Reagan that the Tea Party did coming into Washington the picture would be different. Bail Out was a Republican concept that was carried out by President Obama as was the gathering of information.
I did not like the idea of the bail out.
The actions of collecting the massive amount of data by the NSA may not have even been known or approved. There is a good chance it could have been done for no other reason than they had the ability to do it. I can imagine a couple of people sitting around a computer saying:
no. 1 "They want us to do what?"
no. 2 "They want us to collect information being sent by telephone and the internet that would identify anyone that wants to harm the country."
no. 1 "That's an almost impossible task."
no. 2 "Why don't we collect all the information out there and scan it later?"
no. 1 "Why would we do something like that?"
no. 2 "Because we can, and it is easier doing it that way."

National Health is long over due. I don't think its close to being what should exist. Medicare and Medicaid should be handled the same way. Not as good as those working but meeting the basic need. Then I'd like to see all the procedures used to make an 80 year old feel like a teenager be defined as elective.

Welfare should not be considered a permanent lifestyle. I should include education, job training and work. The programs to be offered in English only. A term to be defined for completion, then automatic reductions in benefits. Fraud in the welfare system, its time to crack down, especially one those filing extra bills and making millions doing it.

An expense in health care which has grown rapidly due to having a primary care and a half dozen specialists are those involving the tests and procedures they desire. If I have lab work to be done I wait until the last minute and go to the lab with three or 4 forms. At present all my doctors are associated with the same hospital and all results are a few key strokes away from all results. I hope the hospital isn't charging full price for all.

I don't care if someone makes a million or more per year and I have an income of 20-25k. I usually have everything I need. I do feel sorry for some who feels they need a car that costs several hundred thousand to enjoy driving. I usually pass them on the highway and few of the owners have the ability to drive them properly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's true. I haven't proven that cake tastes like yogurt either. But you haven't disproven that Reagan's policies resulted in more Americans working while Obama's policies have resulted in fewer Americans working. Which is the subject here.

You haven't offered enough of argument to need disproving. For that matter, I don't think you've even offered proof that the graph you posted was accurate, if you really want to get down to it.

The entire 81 - 82 recession occurred on Reagan's watch. Who are we blaming those job losses on?

The 81 - 82 recession was an intentional recession, brought about by the Fed. The only way to squeeze double digit inflation out of the economy. We can blame those job losses on the Fed. We can blame the great recovery on Reagan and his economic policies.

The simple fact is that government cannot fix any economy. All it can do is make the economic environment as favorable as possible so that the private sector can fix the economy. Reagan did that and the economy rebounded. Obama has done the exact opposite and the economy has not rebounded. Who would have guessed that he got the same results that FDR got, when he tried the same tactics. It doesn't work.

If you're going blame Fed policy for the 81 recession, then you have to credit Fed policy for the 82 recovery,

because Fed policy reversed in 1982. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

 

[The Rabbi]

You haven't offered enough of argument to need disproving. For that matter, I don't think you've even offered proof that the graph you posted was accurate, if you really want to get down to it.

The entire 81 - 82 recession occurred on Reagan's watch. Who are we blaming those job losses on?

The 81 - 82 recession was an intentional recession, brought about by the Fed. The only way to squeeze double digit inflation out of the economy. We can blame those job losses on the Fed. We can blame the great recovery on Reagan and his economic policies.

The simple fact is that government cannot fix any economy. All it can do is make the economic environment as favorable as possible so that the private sector can fix the economy. Reagan did that and the economy rebounded. Obama has done the exact opposite and the economy has not rebounded. Who would have guessed that he got the same results that FDR got, when he tried the same tactics. It doesn't work.

If you're going blame Fed policy for the 81 recession, then you have to credit Fed policy for the 82 recovery,

because Fed policy reversed in 1982. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

^^Simple minds need simple explanations.

 

[Faun]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.
]

Depends on who creates the graph and what information they used, now doesn't it?

The This-Says-It-All graph traces back to some guy named a.akamaihd's Facebook page. And it looks like the IJ Review, a blog, is where it was originally published by a guy named Fred.

The editor's first name is Bubba. Seriously. Bubba Atkinson.

Rabbit, if it wasn't for some rightwing blog, you wouldn't have anything to post.

Then you wont have any problem showing that the information in the graph is incorrect, right?

No problem at all.

Compare it to this chart ...

Proving you to be the imbecile you are couldn't be easier.

 

[Faun]