WWTBAM Bored

The well regarded pollster Selzer & Co. (one of Nate Silver's top-rated pollsters) has ascertained a sharp divide between perception and reality on two issues of public interest. According to this article, the public believes by a margin of 73%-21% that the federal deficit has grown during the Obama Administration. In fact, the deficit has shrunk from $1.413 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $469 billion in the current fiscal year. In other words, not only hasn't the deficit grown, it has shrunk by two thirds.

Second, by a margin of 53%-29%, the public believes that the Administration has deported fewer immigrants than were deported a decade ago. In fact, in fiscal 2004 there were 240,665 deportations, whereas in the last fiscal year there were 315,943 deportations. (The prior fiscal year saw 438,421 deportations.)

When the American public has verifiable facts wrong by this large a margin, someone isn't doing their job. --Bob

$18,000,000,000,000

Quiz: which President doubled the national debt George Bush or Barack Obama

Hint there is no wrong answer

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:$18,000,000,000,000

Quiz: which President doubled the national debt George Bush or Barack Obama

Hint there is no wrong answer

Who cares? The size of the debt (particularly in nominal dollars) doesn't matter. What matters is how much of the economy is going to pay for debt service. Just like most people care a lot less about the size of their mortgage than they care about the size of their mortgage payments.

But this is beside the point. Large majorities of the American people have the facts wrong. That's in part because of excessive fiction-based political advertising, but it's also a reflection of a press that hasn't been doing its job calling out the falsehoods promptly and loudly. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:$18,000,000,000,000

Quiz: which President doubled the national debt George Bush or Barack Obama

Hint there is no wrong answer

Who cares? The size of the debt (particularly in nominal dollars) doesn't matter. What matters is how much of the economy is going to pay for debt service. Just like most people care a lot less about the size of their mortgage than they care about the size of their mortgage payments.

But this is beside the point. Large majorities of the American people have the facts wrong. That's in part because of excessive fiction-based political advertising, but it's also a reflection of a press that hasn't been doing its job calling out the falsehoods promptly and loudly. --Bob

Gruber was right.

Bob78164 wrote: When the American public has verifiable facts wrong by this large a margin, someone isn't doing their job. --Bob

The someone who isn't doing their job is people like you, Bob, and all the others who helped the Republicans and their buddies in the Fox News media perpetuate the myth that Obama was a wild-eyed Saul Alinsky disciple radical when in reality, he was a moderately conservative Democrat. Because you (and I'm using the term collectively here) sat there for years just nodding your head when Obama=radical, Obama=Communist, Obama=most left wing administration the world has ever seen nonsense kept coming out non-stop.

By so doing, the Republicans pushed the political needle way to the right, because people who felt themselves middle of the road (as many Americans do) tried to steer a middle ground between Obama and the most Neanderthal of Republicans, which middle ground winds up being pretty much main stream Republicanism.

What did we get by electing Obama other than the symbolic value of having a black President? We got a wimpy stimulus that didn't do nearly enough to turn the economy around but which pretty much slammed the door on any future stimulus. We got a botched healthcare plan that pretty much cost the Democrats two disastrous mid-term elections and set the party back about ten years in terms of electoral power (and which now stands a pretty good chance of being tossed out by the Supreme Court, since I'm guessing Roberts is reading the electoral tea leaves and figuring the public will welcome this type of decision). We got for the second administration in a row an inept, incompetent administrator and a shambles of a foreign policy.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Gruber was right.

So was P.T. Barnum.

Bob78164 wrote: the public believes by a margin of 73%-21% that the federal deficit has grown during the Obama Administration. In fact, the deficit has shrunk from $1.413 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $469 billion in the current fiscal year.

My source has the 2014 deficit at $496.

Term to date deficit (adjusted for inflation) for Bush after year 5 was $1,888 billion.

Term to date deficit (adjusted for inflation) for Obama after year 5 is $ 5,089 billion (an increase of 270% increase), or $953 billion higher than for Bush's entire 8 year term.

The current year's deficit of $496 is higher than 5 of Bush's 8 years (adjusted for inflation) and only less than 5% lower than 2 others. It is lower than all of Obama's previous 5 years and Bush's last year. So yes, a single interim measure of the deficit has not grown compared to another single interim measure. Sort of like arguing there is no global warming because we experience one year colder than another year in the past we choose to compare it to.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: the public believes by a margin of 73%-21% that the federal deficit has grown during the Obama Administration. In fact, the deficit has shrunk from $1.413 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $469 billion in the current fiscal year.

My source has the 2014 deficit at $496.

Term to date deficit (adjusted for inflation) for Bush after year 5 was $1,888 billion.

Term to date deficit (adjusted for inflation) for Obama after year 5 is $ 5,089 billion (an increase of 270% increase), or $953 billion higher than for Bush's entire 8 year term.

The current year's deficit of $496 is higher than 5 of Bush's 8 years (adjusted for inflation) and only less than 5% lower than 2 others. It is lower than all of Obama's previous 5 years and Bush's last year. So yes, a single interim measure of the deficit has not grown compared to another single interim measure. Sort of like arguing there is no global warming because we experience one year colder than another year in the past we choose to compare it to.

Shame on you! I'm sure you know it was Bush's last year in office when everything fell apart and that carried over to Obama's first year.

Bob Juch wrote:Shame on you! I'm sure you know it was Bush's last year in office when everything fell apart and that carried over to Obama's first year.

I included 2009 in Bush's numbers. Quit giving the incompetent idiot a pass. He's done absolutely nothing to improve the economy other that staying out of the way enough (sort of) in certain areas to allow for recovery and growth. He has destroyed the medical system in this country for all but the 5% bottom feeders. And the improvement they see will be short lived. He's destroyed our country's credibility abroad on a number of fronts.

The only good thing I can say about him is he has all but ensured the next 12-16 years of pseudo-conservative majority rule in this country while things get fixed.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: the public believes by a margin of 73%-21% that the federal deficit has grown during the Obama Administration. In fact, the deficit has shrunk from $1.413 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $469 billion in the current fiscal year.

My source has the 2014 deficit at $496.

Term to date deficit (adjusted for inflation) for Bush after year 5 was $1,888 billion.

Term to date deficit (adjusted for inflation) for Obama after year 5 is $ 5,089 billion (an increase of 270% increase), or $953 billion higher than for Bush's entire 8 year term.

The current year's deficit of $496 is higher than 5 of Bush's 8 years (adjusted for inflation) and only less than 5% lower than 2 others. It is lower than all of Obama's previous 5 years and Bush's last year. So yes, a single interim measure of the deficit has not grown compared to another single interim measure. Sort of like arguing there is no global warming because we experience one year colder than another year in the past we choose to compare it to.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out that 73% of the American public has its facts wrong on this issue, and another 6% doesn't know.

It's possible to have meaningful debate on the significance of various numbers. But not if three quarters of the American people are operating from a demonstrably incorrect understanding of objective facts. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: the public believes by a margin of 73%-21% that the federal deficit has grown during the Obama Administration. In fact, the deficit has shrunk from $1.413 trillion in fiscal 2009 to $469 billion in the current fiscal year.

My source has the 2014 deficit at $496.

Term to date deficit (adjusted for inflation) for Bush after year 5 was $1,888 billion.

Term to date deficit (adjusted for inflation) for Obama after year 5 is $ 5,089 billion (an increase of 270% increase), or $953 billion higher than for Bush's entire 8 year term.

The current year's deficit of $496 is higher than 5 of Bush's 8 years (adjusted for inflation) and only less than 5% lower than 2 others. It is lower than all of Obama's previous 5 years and Bush's last year. So yes, a single interim measure of the deficit has not grown compared to another single interim measure. Sort of like arguing there is no global warming because we experience one year colder than another year in the past we choose to compare it to.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out that 73% of the American public has its facts wrong on this issue, and another 6% doesn't know.

It's possible to have meaningful debate on the significance of various numbers. But not if three quarters of the American people are operating from a demonstrably incorrect understanding of objective facts. --Bob

Bob, that's what the politicians that you support count on. I do not think Gruber was wrong at all. I think he was absolutely right. His sin is that he shows exactly what politicians (including all your heros) think of us. Only he was stupid enough to actually say it. The vast majority of the american public is misinformed and/or ignorant on most issues. And that's who your party panders to. They trumpet 'facts' that support their position and ignore or misrepresent the facts that contradict them, and lie when they need to. As Gruber confirmed, that's how they passed Obamacare in the first place, and they are still doing it. You are one of the people that they absolutely love. You take what they tell you and evangelize it in places like this, where no one has asked you to.

Bob, even if I take your numbers as fact, which I don't, the deficit going down still adds to the accumulated debt of this country. We are still spending a whole lot more than we take in. And there is almost no one even talking about a balanced budget anymore, except the Tea party, who both Dems and Republicans slander. And I as a reasonable person, I do not think a national debt of 18 trillion dollars is a good thing. Obamacare is adding to that deficit, and we have only seen the 'good things' in Obamacare. The employer mandate will be the icing, and that is why it has been put off and put off. But it's coming, and soon.

Bob78164 wrote:Second, by a margin of 53%-29%, the public believes that the Administration has deported fewer immigrants than were deported a decade ago. In fact, in fiscal 2004 there were 240,665 deportations, whereas in the last fiscal year there were 315,943 deportations. (The prior fiscal year saw 438,421 deportations.)

This means nothing without knowing how many were allowed to stay.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Second, by a margin of 53%-29%, the public believes that the Administration has deported fewer immigrants than were deported a decade ago. In fact, in fiscal 2004 there were 240,665 deportations, whereas in the last fiscal year there were 315,943 deportations. (The prior fiscal year saw 438,421 deportations.)

This means nothing without knowing how many were allowed to stay.

Again, the significance of the numbers can be debated. But an intelligent debate cannot be had when a clear majority of the American people have their facts wrong. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Bob, even if I take your numbers as fact, which I don't, the deficit going down still adds to the accumulated debt of this country. We are still spending a whole lot more than we take in. And there is almost no one even talking about a balanced budget anymore, except the Tea party, who both Dems and Republicans slander. And I as a reasonable person, I do not think a national debt of 18 trillion dollars is a good thing. Obamacare is adding to that deficit, and we have only seen the 'good things' in Obamacare. The employer mandate will be the icing, and that is why it has been put off and put off. But it's coming, and soon.

I've asked you this question before and don't recall getting an answer. Why is the size of the national debt a problem? --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote: The vast majority of the american public is misinformed and/or ignorant on most issues. And that's who your party panders to. They trumpet 'facts' that support their position and ignore or misrepresent the facts that contradict them, and lie when they need to. As Gruber confirmed, that's how they passed Obamacare in the first place, and they are still doing it. You are one of the people that they absolutely love. You take what they tell you and evangelize it in places like this, where no one has asked you to.

And how does that differ from the vast majority of Republican supporters who get their "facts" and arguments (i.e., distortions and lies) from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and evangelize them in places like this where no one has asked them to.

Bob78164 wrote:I've asked you this question before and don't recall getting an answer. Why is the size of the national debt a problem? --Bob

Argentina

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I've asked you this question before and don't recall getting an answer. Why is the size of the national debt a problem? --Bob

Argentina

Please elaborate. In a world where interest rates are trapped at the zero lower bound and inflation is sufficiently low as to trigger worries about deflation, why is the size of the U.S. national debt a problem? --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: The vast majority of the american public is misinformed and/or ignorant on most issues. And that's who your party panders to. They trumpet 'facts' that support their position and ignore or misrepresent the facts that contradict them, and lie when they need to. As Gruber confirmed, that's how they passed Obamacare in the first place, and they are still doing it. You are one of the people that they absolutely love. You take what they tell you and evangelize it in places like this, where no one has asked you to.

And how does that differ from the vast majority of Republican supporters who get their "facts" and arguments (i.e., distortions and lies) from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and evangelize them in places like this where no one has asked them to.

SSS, as I've pointed out before, the VAST majority of political posts on this board come from liberals like you expounding their outrage on some issue or another. This outrage is enflamed by the left's ubiquitous propaganda mill, otherwise known as the mainstream media. You post threads like this out of the blue, I guess to try and convince everyone you are intelligent, involved and compassionate, and that you hate injustice. And then when someone disagrees with you, you call them names, question their intelligence, bring up Rush Limbaugh, imply they are racist bigots and/or tell us what we think, what our motives are and how we are terrible people.

With very few exceptions, my political posts on this board have been in response to what I see as distortions and lies posted by the liberals like you, Bob and BJ. That is the same with most of the conservatives and centrists on the board. They mostly don't post political topics out of the blue. You guys do. And only to support your narrative. That's why I asked on this one, where is the political post about Jonathan Gruber? You guys say you post these political threads for the purposes of debate. Why do you only post topics that outrage you? I am not evangelizing, SSS. You, Bob and especially BJ do the evangelizing around here.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: With very few exceptions, my political posts on this board have been in response to what I see as distortions and lies posted by the liberals like you, Bob and BJ.

Unfortunately, the local radio station in Atlanta that has the most reliable weather and traffic reports also carries Limbaugh and Hannity. So, when I find myself on the road, I occasionally wind up listening to that station, especially if I'm concerned about traffic conditions. And somehow, whatever, Limbaugh and Hannity are pontificating on that day seems to find its way into your posts within the next day or so, often in very similar language.

The constant rants about the "liberal media" conveniently overlook the fact that conservatives have one very reliable (albeit frequently inaccurate) house outlet for their view, Fox News, and that most of the "news" stations on the radio, like the one I listen to for traffic, serve as nearly 24-hour a day outlets for conservative talk radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, and their B-teams who fill up the remaining hours of the day.

If you would actually do some investigation, rather than accepting the "party" line as the gospel truth and dismissing anything to the contrary as lies from the liberal media, you would see that conservative arguments are often filled with logical inconsistencies and factual misstatements.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: With very few exceptions, my political posts on this board have been in response to what I see as distortions and lies posted by the liberals like you, Bob and BJ.

Unfortunately, the local radio station in Atlanta that has the most reliable weather and traffic reports also carries Limbaugh and Hannity. So, when I find myself on the road, I occasionally wind up listening to that station, especially if I'm concerned about traffic conditions. And somehow, whatever, Limbaugh and Hannity are pontificating on that day seems to find its way into your posts within the next day or so, often in very similar language.

The constant rants about the "liberal media" conveniently overlook the fact that conservatives have one very reliable (albeit frequently inaccurate) house outlet for their view, Fox News, and that most of the "news" stations on the radio, like the one I listen to for traffic, serve as nearly 24-hour a day outlets for conservative talk radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, and their B-teams who fill up the remaining hours of the day.

If you would actually do some investigation, rather than accepting the "party" line as the gospel truth and dismissing anything to the contrary as lies from the liberal media, you would see that conservative arguments are often filled with logical inconsistencies and factual misstatements.

Once again, you show that you buy in only to the liberal viewpoint. I watch Fox sometimes, but I also watch and listen to a lot of the mainstream news. In my opinion, it is the mainstream news that disseminates the 'party' line and the narrative of the day. Fox News has a bias towards the right, but they do try to cover all sides of an issue a lot more than the other broadcast news outlets. Again, use the Jonathan Gruber story as an example. Almost no mention of it on the mainstream news media. Why?

I see liberal arguments full of logical inconsistencies and factual misstatements, and a lot of time, on purpose. Just ask Mr. Gruber.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: With very few exceptions, my political posts on this board have been in response to what I see as distortions and lies posted by the liberals like you, Bob and BJ.

Unfortunately, the local radio station in Atlanta that has the most reliable weather and traffic reports also carries Limbaugh and Hannity. So, when I find myself on the road, I occasionally wind up listening to that station, especially if I'm concerned about traffic conditions. And somehow, whatever, Limbaugh and Hannity are pontificating on that day seems to find its way into your posts within the next day or so, often in very similar language.

The constant rants about the "liberal media" conveniently overlook the fact that conservatives have one very reliable (albeit frequently inaccurate) house outlet for their view, Fox News, and that most of the "news" stations on the radio, like the one I listen to for traffic, serve as nearly 24-hour a day outlets for conservative talk radio hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, and their B-teams who fill up the remaining hours of the day.

If you would actually do some investigation, rather than accepting the "party" line as the gospel truth and dismissing anything to the contrary as lies from the liberal media, you would see that conservative arguments are often filled with logical inconsistencies and factual misstatements.

Once again, you show that you buy in only to the liberal viewpoint. I watch Fox sometimes, but I also watch and listen to a lot of the mainstream news. In my opinion, it is the mainstream news that disseminates the 'party' line and the narrative of the day. Fox News has a bias towards the right, but they do try to cover all sides of an issue a lot more than the other broadcast news outlets. Again, use the Jonathan Gruber story as an example. Almost no mention of it on the mainstream news media. Why?

I see liberal arguments full of logical inconsistencies and factual misstatements, and a lot of time, on purpose. Just ask Mr. Gruber.

Jonathan Gruber is not a liberal. Remember he was an architect of Romneycare.

We are liberals; why should we "buy in" to a conservative viewpoint.

Jonathan Gruber is not a liberal. Remember he was an architect of Romneycare.

We are liberals; why should we "buy in" to a conservative viewpoint.

Let me clue you in on something. Romney is not a conservative. You need to really expand your 2 dimensional thinking a bit.
I know you are liberals. That is your religion. Any other viewpoint is heresy to you. Keep the faith, brother.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Again, use the Jonathan Gruber story as an example. Almost no mention of it on the mainstream news media. Why?

Perhaps because, in comparison to the real news, the off the cuff comments of an advisor about what went into passing Obamacare five years ago isn't exactly real news.

We saw what happened when the conservative outlets kept beating the Benghazi story to death day after day, and what happened? The final Congressional report (from the Republican controlled House of Representatives) showed just how much substance there was to all the rants.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Fox News has a bias towards the right, but they do try to cover all sides of an issue a lot more than the other broadcast news outlets.

By "all sides of an issue," Fox News means the Boehner/McConnell side as well as the Cruz/Rand Paul side.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Jonathan Gruber is not a liberal. Remember he was an architect of Romneycare.

We are liberals; why should we "buy in" to a conservative viewpoint.

Let me clue you in on something. Romney is not a conservative. You need to really expand your 2 dimensional thinking a bit.
I know you are liberals. That is your religion. Any other viewpoint is heresy to you. Keep the faith, brother.

To someone as far right as you of course Romney is not a conservative.