
Bewildered and lost without his teleprompter
Bewildered and lost without his teleprompter
Gotcha. Thanks.Coito ergo sum wrote:He said "The private sector is doing fine" -- in the most anemic recovery since the great depression.FBM wrote: What's Obama's "doing fine" gaffe? We don't get that much news over here.
It's considered a "recovery" because a recession is generally defined as negative GDP, a shrinking of the GDP. Since GDP has been like 1 or 1 1/2% and teetering, it is no longer "technically" a recession. BUT, unemployment is still over 8.1%, and they leading economic indicators are not good.FBM wrote:Gotcha. Thanks.Coito ergo sum wrote:He said "The private sector is doing fine" -- in the most anemic recovery since the great depression.FBM wrote: What's Obama's "doing fine" gaffe? We don't get that much news over here.
But it is still a recovery, right? I saw a graph yesterday or so that showed a huge upswing in unemployment just before he took office, which naturally continued to climb after he took office. And now it's down to about the same level as when he took office. Looked to me like he's slowly turning thing around. Caveat: I'm ignorant about all this stuff.
Not quite the same thing as a "negative GDP." Think about it.recession
risk appetitekeep upDefinition
A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. A recession is typically accompanied by a drop in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the housing market. A recession is generally considered less severe than a depression, and if a recession continues long enough it is often then classified as a depression. There is no one obvious cause of a recession, although overall blame generally falls on the federal leadership, often either the President himself, the head of the Federal Reserve, or the entire administration.
Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/4086/reces ... z28LEtKtqT
It is exactly the same thing as a "negative GDP" growth -- it's decline in GDP -- GDP falls. Goes down. Recession. How is it not the same thing? Your definition says it.FBM wrote:The graph I'm looking at shows that it kicked off right before he took office. Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize +/- 1% as "much higher." Anyway, the trend suggests that it's going in the right direction: down.
Not quite the same thing as a "negative GDP." Think about it.recession
risk appetitekeep upDefinition
A period of general economic decline; typically defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. A recession is typically accompanied by a drop in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the housing market. A recession is generally considered less severe than a depression, and if a recession continues long enough it is often then classified as a depression. There is no one obvious cause of a recession, although overall blame generally falls on the federal leadership, often either the President himself, the head of the Federal Reserve, or the entire administration.
Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/4086/reces ... z28LEtKtqT
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z28LKNnlQjLeft-leaning commentators hit President Barack Obama hard on TV and the Internet after the first presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday night, saying GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney handily defeated his more experienced opponent.
MSNBC hosts were “stunned” by Obama’s performance, suggesting the president was rusty for not having debated in four years.
Indeed. Historically the first debate helps the challenger, though not by a huge amount.Gerald McGrew wrote:But again, what really matters is if this moves the polls at all.
Ian wrote:Indeed. Historically the first debate helps the challenger, though not by a huge amount.Gerald McGrew wrote:But again, what really matters is if this moves the polls at all.
...
That's what I kept wondering. Who the hell is this guy and what have you done with Barack Obama?Ian wrote:I'd never seen Obama like I saw him last night. I almost wonder if it was part of some deep strategy; beforehand the pundits were all talking about how important it was for him to keep his cool. Well, I think he did a little too much of that.
I take some issue with this. He did not say "death panels." He referred to a review board that actually was in Obamacare and which Obama himself said existed -- they both agreed on what it did -- review things to determine what ought to have money spent on it. Obama characterizes it would be a benign cost-saving thing, and Romney says it would pick and choose different treatments that would be available. Both are correct, really. To call that a Romney "lie" is inaccurate, and to say he brought up "death panels" is also inaccurate. He brought up a review panel that actually would exist -- and Obama described it as a panel of experts, doctors, administrators and such.Ian wrote:Indeed. Historically the first debate helps the challenger, though not by a huge amount.Gerald McGrew wrote:But again, what really matters is if this moves the polls at all.
To break down my earlier remarks a bit further, I'd say Romney won on style and attitude, though certainly not on going point-for-point. I'd give him a B+ grade due to playing loose with too many facts. Obama stretched a few too, but not nearly to same degree. The next few days there will be a lot more discussion over some of the facts he fudged. Drudging up no less than two of Politifact.com's Lie Of The Year issues (death panels and the "goverment takeover" of health care) as well as others will continue to be discussed. And the flip-flopping continued at a jaw-dropping pace, most notably over tax plans. As Bill Maher tweeted: The etch-a-sketch was shaken again and Romney the moderate emerged. The guy is a windsock.
I think that he did win the debate, but more important was that he won the punditry afterwards. The pundits were shouting loud and clear that Romney won. That is who the undecided are more likely to see. Whether it sways the polls remains to be seen.Ian wrote:
On the other hand I'd give Obama a grade of C. Good command of knowledge, but a weak attitude and he missed a lot of opportunities to not only refute Romney's points but hit Mitt in his own soft spots. I'd never seen Obama like I saw him last night. I almost wonder if it was part of some deep strategy; beforehand the pundits were all talking about how important it was for him to keep his cool. Well, I think he did a little too much of that.
The question is, what did Romney win? The debate? Overall, yes. But did he win over undecided voters? I think he might get a plurality but not a majority; many of these people (and there aren't too many this year) still remain undecided if the focus groups are anything to go by. Did he win over all the seniors he needs in Florida? The two didn't fight over Social Security much, but Medicare policy is something Obama will retain to his advantage. Did he energize the conservative base enough? I dunno - last night's performance was not aimed at them. Polls published later next week should tell a better picture of the effects.
No, Romney did not use the term death panels. But he sure invoked that idea. He described the panels enough to get people who don't understand the details enough information to think they'd have the power of granting life or death, without actually saying so. A bit blurry there, but it was he who brought up the "panels" discussion.Coito ergo sum wrote:I take some issue with this. He did not say "death panels." He referred to a review board that actually was in Obamacare and which Obama himself said existed -- they both agreed on what it did -- review things to determine what ought to have money spent on it. Obama characterizes it would be a benign cost-saving thing, and Romney says it would pick and choose different treatments that would be available. Both are correct, really. To call that a Romney "lie" is inaccurate, and to say he brought up "death panels" is also inaccurate. He brought up a review panel that actually would exist -- and Obama described it as a panel of experts, doctors, administrators and such.
Can you explain how he can bring up that review panel without "invoking the idea?" Are we not allowed to discuss that aspect of Obamacare because it reminds people of the label "death panel?"Ian wrote:No, Romney did not use the term death panels. But he sure invoked that idea. He described the panels enough to get people who don't understand the details enough information to think they'd have the power of granting life or death, without actually saying so. A bit blurry there, but it was he who brought up the "panels" discussion.Coito ergo sum wrote:I take some issue with this. He did not say "death panels." He referred to a review board that actually was in Obamacare and which Obama himself said existed -- they both agreed on what it did -- review things to determine what ought to have money spent on it. Obama characterizes it would be a benign cost-saving thing, and Romney says it would pick and choose different treatments that would be available. Both are correct, really. To call that a Romney "lie" is inaccurate, and to say he brought up "death panels" is also inaccurate. He brought up a review panel that actually would exist -- and Obama described it as a panel of experts, doctors, administrators and such.
However, the "government takeover of health care" bit was said loud and clear by Romney at least a couple times. I sincerely hope he gets slapped around for that more in the coming days.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests