Bak Posted February 7, 2010 Report Posted February 7, 2010 http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/docpage-recoverystats1.jpg http://www.thenation.com//images/media/doc/09c/1247699595-xlarge.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BrNJocQYWtw/R1RGTtWTP1I/AAAAAAAAAAY/l8IcY8aOU4s/s1600-R/national%2Bdebt%2Bchart.gif more jobs, lower debts; vote democrat! Quote
SeVeR Posted February 7, 2010 Report Posted February 7, 2010 Well the Republicans always want to fight a war. Quote
Simulacrum Posted February 7, 2010 Report Posted February 7, 2010 That's nothing. By far the biggest part of the deficit increases* under Bush were tax cuts and Medicare Part D. *I say increases, but Bush was really creating a new deficit after Clinton left with a surplus. Quote
NBVegita Posted February 8, 2010 Report Posted February 8, 2010 Of course if you added Obama to the National Debt scale it would be considerably higher than Bush's. Also the numbers for the jobs are from the democratic calculation of "Jobs saved or created" which any statistician worth his muster knows is code for "let's make up any number and pass it off because you cannot possibly measure the number of jobs 'saved'". Also note that the top graph shows the natural course of any recession (you can simply only loose so many jobs before you cannot keep losing jobs at the same pace) and also shows that unemployment did not decrease during that time except during one period. If you also note the graph illustrates that as job loss was decreasing before Obama could even pass anything to influence the economy. The second graph also doesn't show you that the 1992-2000 new jobs were propagated by the .com bubble which promptly burst in 2001 as it needed to. I think the massive surplus of jobs from 39-52 is pretty self evident. Simply put, take everything with a grain of salt. Both sides will do their best to "massage" the data to prove a point. Quote
»Xog Posted February 22, 2010 Report Posted February 22, 2010 You totally should have said mustard. Quote
»D1st0rt Posted February 24, 2010 Report Posted February 24, 2010 political statistics are bullshit Quote
Bak Posted February 25, 2010 Author Report Posted February 25, 2010 it seems like they could be an objective way to measure the outcomes, rather than promises of a specific party. The trick is to first think of the thing you're interested in finding out, then research it to get the statistics, not the other way around. Quote
Dr Brain Posted February 26, 2010 Report Posted February 26, 2010 Statistics are too easily twisted to be inherently meaningful. Quote
Simulacrum Posted February 26, 2010 Report Posted February 26, 2010 (edited) For example, the object of the game is not necessarily to minimize the budget deficit, particularly in the short term. I don't think anyone criticizes FDR for selling war bonds, and Democrats generally don't criticize Obama for the stimulus package. Edited February 26, 2010 by Simulacrum Quote
»freakmonger Posted February 28, 2010 Report Posted February 28, 2010 Statistics are too easily twisted to be inherently meaningful. exactly Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.