Patricia, what do you mean by "official sites"?

I am in no way advocating that we look to only "official" sources, I'm only saying that we all should look to VARIED sources of all kinds. Look at the opinions of people you agree with and people you don't agree with! I think that's the only way to cut through propoganda -- whether it comes from liberals OR conservatives.

As a bleeding-heart liberal, I fully acknowledge that my 'favorite' sources - NPR, the New York Times, The Nation magazine, etc.m - have faults. They give an opinionated view. That's only a valuable perspective unless we compare it to other disagreeing sources.

The main point I want to make is that I don't think any news source should be only for...

Okay, to say a lagging indicator is not relevant when evaluating economic performance is... well, I disagree with that.

But look, it's UNFORTUNATE that the rosiest projections did not come true. But just because they didn't get an economic forecast correct doesn't mean they "don't know what they're doing." The national economy is enormously complex, and predicting it down to an exact number is impossible. It's the same concept as predicting the weather. There becomes a point when complexity reaches a certain point that totally accurate prediction isn't possible. Any time you hear someone talk otherwise that it just shows they haven't studied much econ.

But for the record, I've heard the Obama administration say even...

Okay, I'll stop my lecture after this post. But I just wanted to suggest to some people on here... why don't any of you check out this article:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cf m?story_id=14832016&source=features_box_main

That is an article written by actual ECONOMISTS who do not approve or disapprove of the Obama administration. What about http://www.realclearmarkets.com? They have daily collections of economics articles from conservatives, moderates, foreigners, liberals... just everyone. When you hear everyone's opinion you're more likely to get the...

Every one of you who says that the current unemployment rate represents a failure of the Obama administration is ignorant about economics.

Even beginning macroeconomic textbooks note that employment is the major "lagging indicator" Employment takes much more time than GDP growth to emerge from recession. This fact is almost universally agreed upon by economists, both right and left.

So all of your criticism lodged at the administration about this unemployment figure only uncovers your extreme, unscientific bias... your propensity to criticize the president no matter what he does. What's worse, you mask your irrationality, lack of facts, and bombastic proclamations as some kind of honest debate. What's more, he's only...

Okay, I made a long reply about the studies you sent me. Then I lost my internet connection.

I'm not gonna spend my lunch hour rewriting it but here were the basics: A) for the first comparison, wealth depends on how you define it. National income is different than national wealth/GDP. The wealthiest 2% of americans now control 80% of the wealth in the country. Trickle-down economics works in theory but doesn't fit with the numbers. Wealth inherently trickles UPward in relative ncome terms, if you have unregulated capitalism.

Regarding the second chart, it doesn't mean much to me. Notice the bottom right says "PRIVATE sector job creation"... Well it's only natural that more jobs in the public sector means less...

points you raised, I will agree to you only to the extent that badly run government programs are bad. Of course. But I just take issue with the idea that programs are always bad and inefficient. Why is it that the military does such a good job? Why is it we have better emergency response than most other countries in the world? I take issue when conservatives make arguments along the lines of "The postal service and the DMV are inefficient - thus the government is bad." or "The health system is bad in canada and england - thus so is all socialized medicine." Why don't yall ever consider the alternate approach of "well let's find which government programs DO work and then see if we can apply that to better manage less efficient...

Addressing the Adam Smith/Newton thing. Look, I didn't mean to convey that I think the are irrelevant. Adam Smith is one of the first people you study in econ as you know and his thinking greatly contributed to (started) economics. But using the Newton case an an example, physics has advanced so much via quantum mechanics, relativity, and later systems chaos theory. When you apply these experimentally verified principles to many modern day engineering problems, Newton's laws begin to break down. It is because of the new physics that we have been able to invent computers, lasers & fiber optics, etc. None of this would be possible if the world were as simple as Newtonian physics.

I think the same applies to economics. Adam...

I'm also over trying to talk about healthcare systems with you guys. I'd like to keep chatting with you FEW ppl who made legit comments pertaining to the debate. I wish I could respond to all of your points but that would take me an hour.

First of all, I wasn't "stumped" I just went to bed! God!

I can't believe how insulting and toxic you people are. I didn't criticize any of you personally, I just was maybe over-aggressive in putting out my opinion. Why do yall have to talk to someone like that? If you don't see what I mean, just look at all the posts about me and ask if you would ever talk to someone like that in real life. I got a little sassy at points but I didn't outright insult any of you or call you...

And that's right, I'm also a fascist, communist, lying, naive person. My point is, I did not go to bed as promised because my daughter had a stomachache, so I'm back.

Because of the word limit here, and the biased nature of the commentators of the publication, I can only address a few "arguments" against me here right now.

to Anne: You still have not provided any kind of logical or scientifically based argument to contest what I said. Just emotional typing. Here are the short incomplete points I'd like to make:

1) "Obamacare" nobody calls it that but you guys. It's just a faux-popularized name that you wish would catch on. It makes no contribution to our democratic debate. It means nothing but your fearful...

Alright,

none of you, especially "Anne" seems to be debating with me. None of you have specifically tried to contest the specific arguments that I make.

All I've read is

"naive outbursts"
"have you READ the bill?"
..or calling me a liar without any basis


No one here except for one of you is actually contesting anything I say. You're posting comments with no new information except for questions about me, not questions about the specific facts I provide. In light of that, I'm going to bed.