I don't claim to be an expert on Wisconsin politics, but according to this Investor's Business Daily article, you're completely wrong: Six seats were at stake Tuesday night, with the Democrats taking two. One was a reclaim of a solidly Democratic district. The other saw the defeat of a state senator who moved out of his district to be with his young mistress. The four seats the GOP held had all been carried by Barack Obama in 2008.
LOL, I am sorry Mad. But I read that article and there was not one single thing that indicated even in the slightest that I was wrong on anything much less completely wrong. But "completely wrong" is much more dramatic, isn't it? This is the drama of political professional wrestling at work - Republican drama, all drama and zero substance. There were many errors in the opinion piece you referenced. It is just a repeat of Republican campaign slogans and sound bytes. You are referencing an opinion piece from the same Republican journal that reported Professor Steven Hawking would be dead if he depended on the socialized British healthcare system. Great reporting except for two little facts. Hawkings is alive and has and continues to rely on the socialized British healthcare system. If fact Hawkings if very generous with his praise of the "socialized" British healthcare system despite the pronoucements of the rag you referenced.
Ok, but meanwhile you've not refuted a single one of the claims made in the article we are actually talking about.
I have. When you provide detailed and well documented material to refute, I will refute in kind. But all you have done is post unsupported allegations from a discredited partisan rag.
I do think that you might be becoming a psychopath because they only listen to themselves and see everyone else as wrong, no matter if they are right. I to have stated things and given you links that have provided you with facts that even you dispute as being wrong.
Do you know what a psychopath is Cosmic? Apparently not. Two, just who is this mythical everyone else? Are you saying I disagree with others who find Republican conduct morally and intellectually dishonest? Because if you are, then you need to get your head examined. What you are saying is anyone who disagrees with and calls out the lies of the Republican/Tea Party is in your view a psychopath. That is very very dangerous thinking (or lack thereof) my friend. It is not my job to prove Mad's baseless claims. Mad threw out a partisan article that has no basis in reality - authored and published by a rag not known for it's honesty and correctness. It has in the past published stories that Steven Hawkings would be dead if he depended on the British "socialized" healthcare system. Well Steven Hawkings is not dead and he has relied on the British healthcare system and is an active advocate of that system. It is Mad's job to defend his source. And he has not. If he is going to take the time to post absurd nonsense, then he needs to spend his time backing the claims up with evidence - something he has failed to do. If you have an example of something that you have posted that I have not debunked, then please post it now. You are being challenged to put up Cosmic. You have made this claim in the past, and I have issued you similar challenges in the past. And never once have you responded to the challenge.
I've provided links that you disputed. So I can't get you to understand that the links I provide are very similar to the ones you also provide but with your POV instead. I was saying that under Obama there was over 200,000 new hires into the Federal government and gave you the link that showed you that it was correct yet you dispute that fact. So it would seem to me that if the facts don't prove you correct you just say that the link was a Republican one and it was not giving us the true numbers. That's what I am trying to show you, no matter what evidence is provided unless it fits your POV then its Republican and lies.
Well you still have not proven your case. You have not provided the links. But at least you have mentioned a subject. You are claiming that there are 200k new hires in the Obama government. So? You were also claiming that Obama had expanded government. Just because there are 200k new hires, it does not follow that Obama is increasing government jobs. That is illogical thinking, but very common for people of your political persuasion. You see there is this little thing called turnover. When you run any organization, people quit are fired and retire. So even if you are downsizing an organization, you are always adding new positions. Organizations need to add new people. They have new needs and need more talent. So there are always new hires. And given the fact the federal government has over 4 million employees a turnover rate of 5 percent (200K) is quite modest. And when we had this discussion, I pointed you to the employment numbers from the government agency responsible for reporting employment numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the numbers from the Bureau of Labor statistics did not and do not support the numbers from the partisan article you referenced. In fact the employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor statistics have shown that government employment under Obama has consistently shrunk, month after month. There is no better evidence of employment than the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The article you referenced took a number and misrepresented it in order to feed the passions of the misinformed such as yourself. And here is the really sad part, instead of realizing your mistake when confronted with real hard evidence, you go back the unsupported and incorrect partisan article rather than face the hard evidence before you. I wish this were the exception, but it is unfortunately the norm for people like you Cosmic. So the bottom line here, is that yet again you have not been able to support your claims. You have not shown where I failed to debunk your post. Instead you mention a conversation we had, and your failure to acknowledge data from the record of reference source - The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So you admit I did provide a link with that statement but it is you who thinks the link is misrepresenting the facts? Then you say: "So the bottom line here, is that yet again you have not been able to support your claims." Well its not that I haven't tried but if you won't believe them because of your myopic POV then again I say that you do have a problem because you won't accept anything that doesn't go along with your views.:shrug: But those were numbers that they found from the Federal government themselves. I understand that there are turnovers within the government but the link I provided showed you that those were additional jobs created not replacement jobs that you suggest.
Private sector unions do not play on the same playing field or by the same set of rules as public sector unions. A private sector union tries to achieve a fair labor shake, within the business sector, which is motivated by profits, while also having to play in a competitive market place. The union tries to share the profits during good times, since its labor played a major role in that bounty. But there is a limit to how far you can push, since if company profit gets too low, all te union jobs can be lost due to bankrupcy within the competitive market place. The final deal has to be good for both parties. With public sector unions it is not about profit or bankrupcy, since the government is not about profits nor does it have compete. That means the labor efforts of the public sector unions, don't even have to turn a profit to create demands, like the private sectors unions. The tax payer is like the business owner who, at the very least, expects a level of service from their public union employees. They are not expecting these workers to work hard enough to make them money. But rather they expect them to at least break even in terms of cost and value. This goal is far easier for the public seotor unions compared to the private sector unions. If the private sector unions could use the public sector union approach of no profit, the company would go banrupt and all jobs lost. Luckily this waste can be made up for, with the extortion process called more taxes. It would be like a private sector union bankrupting a company and then able to force it to take a loan, when it should just roll over and die. A good example of the union contrast can be seen with the post office. In the free market, it would continuously operate in the red. This would not be acceptable in the free competitive market, and unions would need to adjust to make sure the boat does not sink. But as a public sector entity, they can create a organization that is sinking, using law to sucking the tax payer dry keeping it afloat, while providing marginal services for the excessive debt and cost. The fair approach, which is beginning to happen, is to make this public union play by the rules of their private sector union comrads. Relative to the post office, modern survival means, thinning the union herd and not forcing the tax payer to pay for the red ink. But democrats get a union kickback, so they will try to pump resources into a sinking ship. Some of this money comes back to the democrats for re-election, which is why they don't mind stealing from the tax payers. Wisconsin is about forcing the public union to play on the same field as the private sector unions. The sinking state and federal boats needs the private unions to come in and help show thhe public sectors unions, the ropes of give and take, leading to mutual health and benefit. This may mean losing 180,000 public sector post office union jobs so the tax payer owner can survive.
LOL, let me try to make it even more simple. 1) You have claimed that: "Well its not that I haven't tried but if you won't believe them because of your myopic POV then again I say that you do have a problem because you won't accept anything that doesn't go along with your views." When challenged to prove your the claim, you offer no proof. You refer to a conversation that you and I had in the past about the size of government and your claim that Obama was growing the size of government. As proof you offered an article written by a right wing nut who pointed to the fact that the government hired replacement workers. 2) You and others like you don't have the clarity of thought to know and understand that hiring replacement workers is not expanding the total number of government employees. And if that were not enough, you go on to totally ignore the data and statements released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which clearly refute your claims. For Example: Total Employees, Beginning = 4 million Employee Attrition (retirement, illness, etc).: 100k New Hires: 50k Do the math. I will give you a hint, it is not more than the beginning base of 4 million. 3) The statements and data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics clearly show the article you referenced to be bogus. And then you claim that I have ignored proofs in favor of my political bias. It is you my friend you have consistently ignored legitimate proofs in favor irrational and bogus claims made by your political leadership.
Don't know where you got your data Joe, but the BLS data I found doesn't agree with that: Federal, except U.S. Postal Service in thousands (USPS left out because of seasonal changes) 2009 Jan 2009 - 2,035.4 Dec 2009 - 2,159.7 2009 Average - 2128.5 2010 Jan 2010 - 2,160.0 Dec 2010 - 2,200.0 2010 Average - 2311.7 2011 Jan - 2,189.4 Feb - 2,196.0 Mar - 2,204.4 Apr - 2,211.2 May - 2,217.1 June - 2,224.9(Preliminary) July - 2,231.5(Preliminary) Or ~200k more than when he took office. http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm Select Federal, Except Postal Workers, Not Seasonally Adjusted. Arthur
And just what data would that be Arthur? If you are refering to my last post in response to Cosmic. I was pointing out that the article being referenced was playing fast and loose with it's numbers. It did not mention attrition rates. And it is in conflict with data published monthy by the BLS. And the 4 million employee base came from Arthur's sources. The bottom line here Arthur is that the BLS has been reporting month after month that government employment has been shrinking since Obama took office. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm "Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 117,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 9.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, retail trade, manufacturing, and mining. Government employment continued to trend down." BLS Using BLS data, federal employment is down some 215k jobs year over year. That is a far cry from the claim made by Cosmic and the article he referenced. The article was a great excerise in deception - showing a sparkly pebble in an attempt to distract from the truth.
Joe, Cosmic was talking about Federal Government jobs: But when the BLS says "Government Employment" they are not just talking about the Federal Government, but all government employees (of which there are about 22.5 million). The BLS figures though do indeed support Cosmic's claim about Federal Gov workers. They clearly do NOT support your claim that they are down 215k. 2008 Average - 2,014,400 2009 Average - 2,128,500 2010 Average - 2,311,700 http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm (Federal Gov (Not including USPS) not seasonally adjusted) Arthur
I suggest you look again, because they do not support the claim. The BLS data flat out show, year over year a loss of 215k federal jobs. And government has been shrinking under Obama at all levels.
Joe I posted the totals directly from the BLS page. They do not show a decrease. If you simply want to compare the last month with non-preliminary data: May 2008 - 2,010 May 2011 - 2,217 Or ~207k INCREASE from 08 till 11. (Federal Employees, (not including USPS) not seasonally adjusted) http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm Arthur
President Obama was not president in 2008 - one of them minor details again. And you cannot really count 2009 against Obama as Republicans have and continue to do. Because that budget was signed by George II. Last July federal employee headcount was 215k more than it was last July per the BLS.
No kidding, I just showed the 08 totals to show the last year that GW was president. And Budgets don't prevent reducing head count. Obama could have cut Federal employees had he wanted to and not busted the budget, indeed it is the opposite which is more difficult to do. So no one is "counting 09 against Obama" but that IS the level of Federal Employees that he started with. To claim he has reduced Federal employees during his term means the current numbers have to be below those 2009 levels. July 09 - 2,147 <== Where Obama STARTED July 11 - 2,231 <== Where Obama is NOW They aren't. Arthur
LOL, yeah. The facts are federal government has lost 215k jobs year over year. And that is not what the article Cosmic referenced. The article was full of misrepresentations and spin. But you guys on the right mindlessly eat it up. If some tells you that the government has 200k new hires, it does not follow that the government as expanded its headcount by 200k. A reasonable person would ask, ok now how many left government service? Funny, the article doesn't even attempt to answer that question. The unpleasant fact for you and those like you is that Obama has not grown goverment. In fact government employment has shrunk under the Obama administration both at state and federal levels. So you guys have to make stuff up or throw other non related stuff in an attempt to mislead and when all else fails you just make up new meanings for old words (e.g. respect = obey - Bachmann).
No, Cosmic's quote IN THIS THREAD is: I was saying that under Obama there was over 200,000 new hires into the Federal government There are no links to any articles in this thread. No, it's simple math. Obama took office in January of 2009 There were 2,035,400 Federal employees when he did so. As of July 2011 there were 2,231,500 Federal employees. ~200,000 more since OBAMA took office. What happened between 2010 and now is NOT relevant.
