Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Are ANY of the numbers wrong? Any at all?

Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 11, 2012, 9:17 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 11 years ago

interesting how you will working out hehehe http://www.hangthebankers.com/americas-debt-vizualized/

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

especially see minute 14-15

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

OR anything discussed that willard would have done better in the last 40 months? anything?

Or ANY ryanesque lies? anything?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 11 years ago

"There are 3 kinds of lies. lies, damn lies and statistics" (Diraeli? Mark Twain?} Is "better than Mittens" now our standard ? .

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

All numbers check out. Repubs don't create jobs (in America) Dems do!


[-] 4 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

Nick Hanauer, self-described "super-rich" entrepreneur, gave a pretty compelling TED Talk about how the middle class—not the super-rich—are the real job creators. But TED, which has released over 100 different political videos in the past, thought this one was too partisan and chose not to release it. We didn't notice any flaming partisanship in it. We normally love TED, and were surprised they didn't think this talk was TEDworthy.

Under pressure from the Internets, TED finally relented and released the video. Watch it and decide for yourself if it's really all that controversial to say that the "super-rich are not job creators." Then share it like crazy.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

what your saying here about why TED didn't place this one on their site is incorrect, not even Mr. Hanauer feels that way anymore, the truth is they release one a day and this one didn't make the cut, they later put it on you-tube where it has been sen many times, if you want I'll get the references, but it's not the important part of the story anyway

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 11 years ago

The real question that has to be asked is "was it the government or the private sector that created the jobs"?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

The real questions
Q: why we have lost so many public sector jobs?
A: Rs want that
Q: If we taxed the rich and built roads & schools & renewable energy?
A: Our enemplyment rate would drop 25% - the Rs dont want that

again - what would willard have done in the last 40 months
that would be better

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 11 years ago

If you listen to Obama and Romney you will soon learn there is a big difference in what they say with regard to encouraging people to prosper.

When you listen to Obama talk all he talks is about the middle class and wealth distribution. He says nothing about encouraging small businesses to prosper, nor does he make any reference about encouraging the middle class to become wealthy.

All he thinks is that we are just a "middle class society".

Now if you listen to Romney he talks not only about building the middle classs but talks about small business growth and encouraging people to become wealthy.

Obama uses his "divide and conquer" technique that has been used by many leaders who want to rule and one in particular stands out Adolf Hitler.

Where do you think the money came from in the past to build roads, Schools and renewable energy - it comes from businesses and working people.

And why aren't we building roads and Schools - the government is broke and there are a lot less businesses and people working paying taxes.

But lets not forget the billions in failed companies that made an attempt at renewable energy that Obama handed out when instead that money could have been used for roads & schools.

Small businesses and working people are what provide the government with the funds it needs to operate and what makes the economy grow.

Playing the middle class against businsses does not encourage any businessman or business woman to want to invest in growth especially when it involves being threatened by "forced wealth distribution"

I would much rather have the opportunity to work for a president who encourages small businesses growth then a president who encourages wealth distribution.

At least I know that should I start a business, I have the opportunity to become successful and not have to worry about the money I earned being taken from me to be given to someone else.

And the reason for that is if small business prospers, so does everyone else for it gives people opportunities they would never have to learn how to run or operate a businesses so that some day they too may be in business for themselves.

And BTW when I talk about "businesses" I am talking about small businesses with less then 500 employees - not gigantic multibillion dollar corps - they are in a class of their own.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

Almost 2 million dollars from Goldman Sachs to the Obama and Romney campaigns

Over 1 million from JP Morgan

Over 1 million from Morgan Stanley

Over 1 million from Citi Group

Almost 1 million from GE

Are any of these numbers wrong?

Fuck the corporate/banker 2 party system.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

afraid to answer my simple questions?

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

Your questions are irrelevant. Both parties in recent years have contributed heavily to our current rate of unemployment.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Actually, it was Wallstreet that did that.

They still are.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 11 years ago

And ???

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

Still afraid to admit you're choosing sides with Goldman Sachs?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

No - I will choose the BEST electable candidate
Do you have the courage to vote for the BEST [ IYHO ] electable candidate?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

The best people that Goldman Sachs preselected.

Great idea.

Its worked out great the last 40 years!

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3084) from Waterville, NY 11 years ago

Goldman Sachs ALONE caused the meltdown by insisting that AIG pay every penny they owed IMMEDIATELY-all of the other counterparties had agreed to wait 30 days.They did this because they knew Bear,Lehman and Merril Lynch would be wiped out in the ensuing chaos because of their positions,and they Somehow Knew that Goldman wouldn't be...Anyhow...this is one of the versions of What Really Hppened.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

GS has given most of their money to the party that has vowed to repeal the Dodd Frank fin reform that they already watered down.

You wanna pretend you don't know which party that is.?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

In 2008 Goldman Sachs actually gave more to democrat Obama than to republican McCain. They gave 1 million to Obama.

Do you want to pretend like neither of these parties are working for the banks?

Goldman Sachs is in this current administration just like the last one with Bush.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

That was 2008. The reality NOW is that wall street 1% plutocrats are now squealing like pigs against one parties efforts (minimal as they are) against the hegemony they enjoy over the 99%.

Both parties are working for the banks. One has had the nerve to take small action against them and the 1% banks have mounted massive resistance (using the other party) against that party.

Will you acknowledge THAT reality!?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

I will not support a constitutional convention, i don't trust it, those of us who would like affect the future do what we can, the others just bitch i guess.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 11 years ago

How can you NOT support a constitutional convention?
ALEC & KOCH are trying to buy one

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

I don't trust what would be done. I think a lot of 1% supports would be in the room.

Killing the GOP will get more done and is a lot safer.

[-] 1 points by ogoj11 (263) 11 years ago

Hi Eric, A constitutional convention is a site for a political battle. Only do battle when you have the strength to win. We need to focus on building our strength, fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, militarism, inequality, etc. Don't bother with talking to the ruling class. Just gather our strength, support one another

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

If not now then never. There is always an excuse for hte American people to wait till next time.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

Mr NAFTA and repeal of Glass Steagall himself everybody

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Big mistakes to support/sign those conservative policies.

We need progressive solutions to these damaging conservative policies.

Attacking a party or politician is unproductive.

replace pro trade deal, anti fin reform conservatives with anti trade deal, pro fin reform progressives, And protest all pols for real change.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

Propping up the people that contribute to the problem is not productive.

Speaking truth and exposing those where they are wrong is productive.

An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Sure! I haven't advocating doing that. I propose:

replace pro trade deal, anti fin reform conservatives with anti trade deal, pro fin reform progressives, And protest all pols for real change.

You disagree?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

So you still running them ads for Romney?

Or have you figured out an answer to the question, how does neither take office?