"The private sector is doing fine."

[DavidJames]

I think most conservatives know well that private sector generates wealth and public sector confiscates it.

Public sector employees get paid and buy lots of stuff made by the private sector which helps increase private sectors wealth. They also pay taxes which provide services to public and private sector people. It's odd you can't comprehend such a simple concept.

Libbies don't seem to.

I'll pass that along to the next 11 year old I see and have them respond, then you guys can continue at that level.

shuize - Yes the private sector pays the salaries of the public sector employees. They also pay private sector employees as well. I guess I'm missing your point.

 

[Corsair 115]

That's the result of Bush policies. Oil production can't turn on a dime. It takes a lot of time to get production up and running, which is why you're seeing the effects now.

(1) Evidence for your claim that Bush administration policies are responsible for the rise in production.

(2) If we grant your premise that the Bush administration is responsible for the rise in production, considering the Bush administration had eight years in office, the question becomes why did it take until after President Bush left office for these gains to finally be seen. Should it not have been seen earlier?

Let's give the Bush administration one year's grace. U.S. crude oil production in 2001—the end of the first year for that administration—was 2,117,511,000 barrels. In 2008, the last year it was in office, crude oil production had fallen to 1,811,817,000 barrels. That's a decline of 14.4%. Seven years, and not one increase in production. Indeed, it actually fell every single year of the Bush administration. (Production had declined every year since 1991—seventeen consecutive years.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wonder how many of the people trying to make political hay out of Obama's statement (by willfully misunderstanding it) defended Romney from similar attacks when he said he's not concerned about the poor.

 

[shuize]

shuize - Yes the private sector pays the salaries of the public sector employees. They also pay private sector employees as well. I guess I'm missing your point.

Given that the private sector pays for everything, one might be forgiven for thinking that it represents the most important aspect of our nation's "economy."

However, as President Obama pointed out:

"The private sector is doing fine."

It's just the public sector -- the "real" economy -- that is not doing fine.

Obama: "It is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine."

Those poor government employees. When I worked in the public sector -- I mean, the "real" economy -- I never realized how bad I had it.

 

[Travis]

Out of curiosity what specific actions would Obama have to take for everyone to agree he doesn't want to impoverish America?

 

[randman]

Obama and apparently many folks here are confused as to what the private sector is. First the private sector does not primarily consist of Fortune 500 companies, although they are part of it. So when someone says, well look, these companies are making record profits and so the private sector is just fine, they demonstrate some ignorance on the economy.

Second, most new jobs are not created by older, established large corporations. Most new job growth comes from small and medium businesses. One reason we aren't seeing the sort of job growth necessary to lower the unemployment and underemployment rates is the fact the private sector is not actually doing just fine. It is growing but anemically.

Imo, Obama really shows us where his heart and mind is. Anemic growth in the private sector is "just fine" in his words. What he laments is despite his expansion of federal government and federal employees, the states have to balance their budget and so they have had to lay some people off. This is troubling, it appears, to the president, not that we an anemic growth in the private sector but that we've actually had some limited downsizing of government.

That should tell anyone where his priorities are and what he is trying to accomplish. Someone should stress to the president, however, that the private sector pays for the public sector, and that you cannot sustain growing government by borrowing forever to fund that.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Given that the private sector pays for everything, one might be forgiven for thinking that it represents the most important aspect of our nation's "economy."

However, as President Obama pointed out:





It's just the public sector -- the "real" economy -- that is not doing fine.




Those poor government employees. When I worked in the public sector -- I mean, the "real" economy -- I never realized how bad I had it.

That would be straw.

 

[JihadJane]

Given that the private sector pays for everything, ...

A good example of how modern economics ignores externalities. At the moment, it is environment that pays for everything.

 

[Cain]

Fact is... rich people are not as rich as they could be.

 

[BenBurch]

BTW, Dow is now UP for the year.

 

[RandFan]

From the EPA, for example. There's only one case (Pavillion, Wyoming) where they've got good evidence that a fracking operation contaminated ground water. But they don't have evidence that this contamination is coming from where the fracking occurs, rather than from a leaking well casing. And the later can happen with conventional gas drilling too.

You have not yet addressed the studies I posted. Fracking is in it's infancy and there are claims that there are real problems. These need to be addressed.

For some people, nothing cuts it. But as Ben pointed out, it's a question of alternatives. And the alternative to fracking right now is coal. Do you think coal is better than fracking?

A.) I've not said we should not do fracking. B.) There is no urgency that we adopt any single technology.

My argument isn't an argument from ignorance, RF. You're wrong about this just like you were wrong about my source of information.

You haven't provided a source and you are arguing about what you don't know. You are also simply arguing by assertion. You've not established that you are an authority. You simply come into the thread and start lecturing as if you are one and as if your sources are other than propaganda. Okay, I don't know what your sources are. I'll take the null hypothesis and you let me know when you have something other than assertion. Until then I'll keep pointing out that you are basing your argument on what you yourself have said is what don't know and simply making assertions about what the facts are. That much is demonstrable. I'm more than happy to consider any evidence that you have.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Is this Obamas "I voted for it before I voted against it" moment? Or does he have an even better one in store for us? With 5 months to go and hundreds of unscripted appearances before November, could Obama screw up worse than this?

Yes he can!

Ah, yes, I remember it well; John Kerry's infamous flip-flop moment.

I can't necessarily categorize Obama's statements as a flip-flop. Had they been a true Kerryesque flip-flop, the President would have come out later in the day and clarified that the private sector is not doing fine. He didn't do that. Instead, he said the economy is not doing fine. No, flip-flop doesn't quite descibe what the President did.

I think a better way to categorize the President's remarks is to call them a Flop-Flap. His initial comment flopped, so later in the day he had to come out and flap, flap, flap in a bid to lessen the sting of his initial flop.

John Kerry is a flip-flopper. President Obama is a flop-flapper. I can only hope the President has more flop-flap moments in the near future.

 

[Bikewer]

Of course, Romney has had a few "changes of direction" himself.....

Seems to go with the territory.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Ah, yes, I remember it well; John Kerry's infamous flip-flop moment.

I can't necessarily categorize Obama's statements as a flip-flop. Had they been a true Kerryesque flip-flop, the President would have come out later in the day and clarified that the public sector is not doing fine. He didn't do that. Instead, he said the economy is not doing fine. No, flip-flop doesn't quite descibe what the President did.

It's not the flip-flopping I'm referring to, but the effect it had on Kerry's campaign. It was the critical error that came to signify the campaign as a whole. Much like Bush 41's "Read my lips" (which helped him in '88, but became the noose which Clinton hung him with in '92). Or the great blunder of the McCain '08 campaign, suspending the campaign and running back to Washington during the burgeoning financial crisis so that McCain could be seen by the country as doing... well... almost nothing. It was a blunder from which McCain, who had been running neck and neck with Obama up to that point, never recovered from.

"The private sector is doing fine" is a such a bone-headed and reality-divorced error that it has a similar potential to be looked back at years from now as the moment the Obama campaign went off the rails (at least to the extent that liberals can be convinced to look beyond the color of Obamas skin and see what he's really doing).

I think a better way to categorize the President's remarks is to call them a Flop-Flap. His initial comment flopped, so later in the day he had to come out and flap, flap, flap in a bid to lessen the sting of his initial flop.

John Kerry is a flip-flopper. President Obama is a flop-flapper. I can only hope the President has more flop-flap moments in the near future.

We're agreed on this. The biggest thing about the entirety of his comments, including the part about growing the government to improve the economy, his comment isn't the slap in the face to 23 million unemployed Americans, it's that it betrays Obamas inability to grasp the relationship between the private sector and the government. In a free market economy, the private sector ~IS~ the economy. The size and health of the private sector dictates how much income the government can receive. Obama believes the government is the economy and growing it, grows the economy... So where then does he think the money comes from?

 

[Ziggurat]

You haven't provided a source

I gave you a source, the EPA. I haven't provided a link.

and you are arguing about what you don't know.

You have no idea what I know or don't know.

You are also simply arguing by assertion.

And yet, you keep making assertions about me. Somehow, you feel those are justified but my assertions are not. Like I said, RF, cut the crap. You don't have to be satisfied by my argument, but your repeated assertions about what I think and where

You've not established that you are an authority.

I've never claimed to be. But you haven't established my sources or my level of knowledge either, yet you feel qualified to declare both to me.

You simply come into the thread and start lecturing as if you are one and as if your sources are other than propaganda.

I come here and state my position. Just like everyone else. I didn't start the personal attacks, RF, YOU did.

Okay, I don't know what your sources are.

Damn straight. Which is why you should ASK. But you didn't do that, did you? No, you assumed (wrongly), and proceeded to attack. Given the inherent dishonesty in telling me what you don't know, why exactly do you think I'm going to be in the mood to engage you in reasoned debate? Hell, I'm not seeing much evidence that that's what you're even interested in. Because if it is, you're doing a piss-poor job of showing it.

 

[RandFan]

...it's that it betrays Obamas inability to grasp the relationship between the private sector and the government. In a free market economy, ²the private sector ~IS~ the economy. ³The size and health of the private sector dictates how much income the government can receive. ¹Obama believes the government is the economy and growing it, grows the economy... So where then does he think the money comes from?

1. Source please?This is just so silly given that Obama has behaved like a moderate Republican. Obama could have been a moderate Democrat and still that would not have demonstrated that Obama believes that the government is the economy and that there is no need for a private sector.
2. No. It's not. The economy ISN'T any single thing. The public sector provides resources and services that very much benefit the economy. Having been an auditor for 7 years I often would hear business leaders say that the accounting department does not generate income. Yet they never seem to eliminate the accounting department. The error they make and the fatal flaw to your thesis is to fail to recognize the interdependent nature of constituent elements of any system. The wheels might not provide the energy for momentum but most cars simply will not have momentum (or will have very little) without them or something to take their place.
3. There is a size point of govt at which there are diminishing returns. However, govt must be of sufficient size to meet the needs of citizens and business to ensure safety and the health of both commerce and citizens. Looking around at the rest of the world we see that nations without strong social safety nets and sufficient govt services are negatively correlated to vibrant and flourishing societies. Nations with strong social safety nets are negatively correlated to dysfunctional societies.

The vast majority of conservatives get this BTW. Other than anarchists they will admit that there is some size of govt that is necessary to promote the common welfare. They simply disagree as to the size. The problem lies not so much with their philosophy but their rhetoric which paints a picture of govt as simply being a problem that must be solved by shrinking it. Not without some truth BTW. The difficult problem is figuring out when govt has overstepped or become too big or regulates too much or worse, regulates badly.

 

[RandFan]

I gave you a source, the EPA. I haven't provided a link.

Another way to say asserted.

You have no idea what I know or don't know.

And yet, you keep making assertions about me. Somehow, you feel those are justified but my assertions are not. Like I said, RF, cut the crap. You don't have to be satisfied by my argument, but your repeated assertions about what I think and where

I've never claimed to be. But you haven't established my sources or my level of knowledge either, yet you feel qualified to declare both to me.

I come here and state my position. Just like everyone else. I didn't start the personal attacks, RF, YOU did.

Damn straight. Which is why you should ASK. But you didn't do that, did you? No, you assumed (wrongly), and proceeded to attack. Given the inherent dishonesty in telling me what you don't know, why exactly do you think I'm going to be in the mood to engage you in reasoned debate? Hell, I'm not seeing much evidence that that's what you're even interested in. Because if it is, you're doing a piss-poor job of showing it.

Spare me your indignation. I'm sorry I stole your reason for outrage when I said I would take the null hypothesis. This is all hand waving to avoid the simple fact that you have provided no source for your assertions.

I'm still waiting.

 

[Caper]

I seriously doubt he could screw up as much as Romney who changes positions almost daily.

Isn't Romney basically Obama... with less character? Would there really be any big difference if Romney was elected? I mean Obama dived to the center... Romney was always there and is just trying to play to the Republican base. I really don't see any major difference in how they will operate. Hopefully Romney loses so Chris Christie can run in 2016.... if he doesn't die of a massive heart attack.

 

[AlBell]

You have not yet addressed the studies I posted. Fracking is in it's infancy and there are claims that there are real problems. These need to be addressed.

A.) I've not said we should not do fracking. B.) There is no urgency that we adopt any single technology.

You haven't provided a source and you are arguing about what you don't know. You are also simply arguing by assertion. You've not established that you are an authority. You simply come into the thread and start lecturing as if you are one and as if your sources are other than propaganda. Okay, I don't know what your sources are. I'll take the null hypothesis and you let me know when you have something other than assertion. Until then I'll keep pointing out that you are basing your argument on what you yourself have said is what don't know and simply making assertions about what the facts are. That much is demonstrable. I'm more than happy to consider any evidence that you have.

Yawn. Re the words I bolded, I'll go with null hypothesis too. Got any actual facts instead of "maybes/mights/OMGs!"? You are in Rachel Carlson territory, who imo appears responsible for untold third world deaths due to mosquito bites by the DDT use ban. Lefties don't seem to worry about those uninitended consequences of their recommendations.

Other (old) wells are as likely a problem as new fracked ones. Please have your scientific fact gatherers sort that out. Possibles ways to do so and tie back to fracking exist, but I doubt they'd be allowed by EPA; radioactive (or die) tracers really don't seem a very good idea to me either.

 

[RandFan]

Yawn. Re the words I bolded, I'll go with null hypothesis too. Got any actual facts instead of "maybes/mights/OMGs!"? You are in Rachel Carlson territory, who imo appears responsible for untold third world deaths due to mosquito bites by the DDT use ban. Lefties don't seem to worry about those uninitended consequences of their recommendations.

Other (old) wells are as likely a problem as new fracked ones. Please have your scientific fact gatherers sort that out. Possibles ways to do so and tie back to fracking exist, but I doubt they'd be allowed by EPA; radioactive (or die) tracers really don't seem a very good idea to me either.

This isn't particularly substantive. The ad hom isn't valid nor is it even analogous to what I'm saying. I'm not calling for a ban So that didn't help us much. And just asserting stuff and engaging in silly rhetoric doesn't really help much either. Do you have something a bit more substantive?