So Simple Even A [bleep] Can Understand It

Nancy Pelosi put together a chart to compare job losses between Bush era and Obama's term.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4a752f4a41b.jpg[/atsimg]



Ok, so does anybody not understand which way this chart reads?


Source (the "teabag" parody version)

Source (the original "nice" version)



EDIT: "Teabagger" is a WoW community/online game slang... not against the Tea Party movement.

EDIT: So much for freedom of speech... "Bleeped"

[edit on 5-2-2010 by dzonatas]

It's an interesting chart and encouraging chart but I think it should be noted that Nancy Pelosi herself did not use this belittling and (to some) inflammatory terminology. It's my understanding that some in the tea bag movement feel it's okay to use the word 'teabagger' and maybe they have a sense of humor but others do not.

reply to post by ChrisCrikey


Maybe there is a crowd I'm not aware of in politics that has used such term to belittle. I've known it from the online game community and its usually not done to offend.

I did include/post the original source (without the extra commentary from the first source).

Well all I see is staggering job loss and I do believe it’s foolish to place the blame entirely or even in large part on the government because the reality is that the economy is corporate driven not government driven.

If anything government for the most part just acts as a rubber stamp for what the corporations want.

Honestly I put the huge job losses not on Government and not even on the Corporations who’s business practices have led to them but rather on American consumers who’s purchasing habits have rewarded corporations for exporting jobs, stagnating and decreasing living wages for jobs here and supporting corporate efforts in breaking up the labor unions.

The truth is it’s not about Obama, Bush, or even the corporations its who you decided and how you decide to reward businesses or corporate entities with your money and purchases or conversely how you boycott them as an individual to punish and protest their business practices.

The buck might stop in Washington but it starts it’s trip there from your wallet!

Yes, well the thread title itself is belittling, isn't it? I'm a liberal and a Democrat and I would definitely like more civil dialog and communication with people in the tea bag movement, and Libertarians and Republicans and independents for that matter.

Communication doesn't start off well putting other people down from the get go and I just wanted to make sure that people reading your OP and who don't bother to read the linked blogs are not mislead into believing Nancy Pelosi was that disrespectful.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by ChrisCrikey]

It says on the left side.

"Jobs Lost"

And the chart then shows -100,000 or whatever.

So this means if you Lose -100,000 jobs, than in reality you GAIN 100,000 jobs??

Regardless of that, this chart is retarded. The numbers are inaccurate, and you simply cannot prove it. List every single job lost, I dare you.

You can't, so I won't consider these figures accurate at all.

The column on the left should read "JOBS" not "JOBS LOST". It would not look as weird.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by muzzleflash]

reply to post by dzonatas


First of all, what figures does this chart derive from? I hope it doesn't drive from the unemployment figures that government feeds us every month because that would just be sad.

A more telling chart would just be the REAL percentage of unemployment since the Great Recession began. Of course, it is pretty obvious as to what it would look like.

In finality, yes, of course the graph is going to look like sunshine and daisies. At the end of the Bush era the economy was in a nosedive of a collapse. Thanks to the cute little stimulus packages and bailouts, we have been able to maintain this secondary bubble through the course of 2009. Obviously is the public is under the impression that everything is fine and dandy, the backlash from a recession isn't going to be great. Don't let it fool you, we aren't losing jobs AS FAST but we are still losing jobs. You also need to understand that employment versus the population isn't an infinite number and thus it is impossible for a downward spiral to continue.

When you reach rock bottom, it is sort of hard to go any lower, get my drift?

The source reads "acceleration" and "deceleration" rates, but the chart says "job loses."

That is one thing to point out about the chart.

However, we still experience major job loss, so the chart says we have slowed that rate back down. Yea or nay?

[edit on 5-2-2010 by dzonatas]

"Tea-bagger" is derogatory, I won't try to enlighten you to it's meaning since this isn't an adult web site, LOL, but agree with them or not, the correct label is "Tea-partier". Now if only we could keep the right-wing militants from hijacking the movement and turning it into a Palin fan club at the exclusion of all the centrists and moderates out there, I'd be happy.

As to job-losses, it's always on a boomerang, we'll almost certainly see spikes in losses and gains that won't reflect the economy or recovery accurately. I will admit Obama has used stimulus funds to create jobs from public works. Our local police department has added over 100 officers to the force using stimulus funds. No complaints here! Recover the economy then slash spending.

Let me use an analogy.... if I had a jar of cookies, and stated taking them out. And I started taking these cookies out in 1s and 2s, then I kept on but in 3s and 4s. They were good and I did so even faster in 4s and 5s, the removal rate would be much the same as the jobs loss chart, and then I slowed...4-5 was down to 3-4 and then 2-3 cookies, until I was removing the cookies at 1-2 at a time ...because I was running out of cookies. Eventually, when the cookies were all gone...the rate would be 0.

Likewise, the jobless rate due to normal up/down 30year cycles, increased and supposedly is decreasing...UNFORTUNATELY, there are fewer and fewer jobs around to lose.
Last Tuesday, the Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, and a few others reported that the US suffered the worst single one day JOB LOSS in our history.
The current unemployment rate has gone down...you know why? They do not count all of those unemployed that have given up on finding a job...current rate is more accurately 17%+. We are now approaching rates not seen since the Great Depression.
If El Presidente' Osamabamadama gets the tax hikes he wants, the economy will suffer. If he gets the deficit spending bill he wants, our economy will suffer. If he allows the Fed to keep printing money( which drives the value down into 3rd world levels), the economy suffers. If you want to see where we are going, read a history of the Weimer Republic of Germany about 1920-1925...groceries go up by the hour, riots in the streets from massive job losses...already happening in France, Spain, Greece.... will happen here too.
OBAMA...Hope and Change...I just HOPE I have some CHANGE left

Yeah.

Teabagging in the video game world essentially means you defeated someone, and then defiled them by um, putting a bag of tea in their face. I'll put it that way.

So yeah it's kind of a compliment. Sorta.

I find it disgusting though, I'm not degenerate like that.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by muzzleflash]

Oh... where to begin. There is no such thing as "jobs saved". Obama didn't save anyone's job. But what he did do was to ensure that "government jobs would continue". They are union jobs and pro Obaminites. And Obama didn't inherit this mess from Bush. All during the Bush years employment was around 4.5 to 5 percent. Bush spent money like a true democrat, true, but were it not for the stupidity of the 787 Billion credit bailout he would have done ok. But Obama has lost over 8,000,000 jobs since he took over. He is spending the nation into bakruptcy. He is taxing the poop out of everyday Americans. Nuff said. He is a lost cause. Now for the Tea Party.



The Tea Party Movement.

Members: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians.
Makeup: Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. Multi religious, non religious.
Leadership: The People
Creed: The Constitution of the United States of America.

Items of Importance:

1. Smaller government.

2. Less taxation.

3. Less government spending.

4. True American values.

5. Ethical leadership.

6. Strong national defense.


The Choice is yours. For me, I'd rather be a Teabag in the Tea Party movement. I'm fired up, and ready to go come November.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I find it disgusting though, I'm not degenerate like that.

I hate it when they do that! I thought it was just an Alliance thing. All my toons are on the Horde. (I don't play WoW anymore... i deny it when people offer me game cards)


Just noticed that the chart may not have been made by Pelosi. Hmmm.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
It's an interesting chart and encouraging chart but I think it should be noted that Nancy Pelosi herself did not use this belittling and (to some) inflammatory terminology. It's my understanding that some in the tea bag movement feel it's okay to use the word 'teabagger' and maybe they have a sense of humor but others do not.

She uses the term Nazi, astroturfers, and mob rule! (linkypoo below)
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

I still don't understand why the ATS staff and mods continue to let some of the members fly below the radar for the purpose of violating ATS T&C and allowing them to use such an offensive word that references "teabagging".

Clearly ATS mods are not that stupid to be conveniently duped by this double entendre.

When is someone going to take a stand on this?

[edit on 5-2-2010 by Alxandro]

What is your point? Obama did a terrible job at creating jobs? At the height of this depression, job loss was at something like 1 million jobs in one month. Naturally, that rate had no where to go but up, since if it didn't, every last one of us in the US would have been unemployed in short order.

Many jobs are not a good at all... government jobs for example leech money from an economy and bring down everyone's quality of life. In fact, jobs by default are a bad thing. If you don't believe me I can visit your house with a large sack of dirt and create a big job for you, and you'll know what I mean. Jobs are only good if they are productive for an economy.

I heard that Milton Friedman was traveling through China and at some point watched a canal being built. He mentioned to his contact in China it seemed odd they were still using pickaxes and shovels when they had bulldozers. His contact replied "oh, that is a jobs program designed to create jobs". Milton Friedman replied something like... "oh I'm sorry I thought you were trying to build a canal... these guys should have been given spoons for the job".

The only chart you need to be looking at is the chart of debts. That is what is important. There are other important ones like the money supply chart, but the debt charts are the important ones to look at. The US economy has been torn up by excessive debts. So, the chart to show is the one showing how the government has been paying down that excess debts and therefore improving the health of the economy. Except it doesn't exist because debts are still raging out of control and therefore the economy is getting badly trashed even now under year #2 for Obama.

Jobs are a trailing indicator, meaning jobs only come after the health of the economy is well on track to recovery. Jobs are lost only after the economy has been in the toilet for a few months, and they are only gained after the economy picks back up for a few months. So you could argue that it was Bush's bailout that has helped the economy, or you could argue that it was Obama's bailout that has helped the conomy. You'd be wrong in both cases. Both bailouts hurt the economy as both of them resulted in a worse root problem of excessive debts in the system.

Presidents are clueless about economics. Absolutely clueless. A lot of people think that the economy is going sour because "illegals are taking all our jobs". Sorry, but the chart of debts through the 1920's looks really close to what the chart of debts looks like through the 2000's.

Obama doesn't really have anything to do with the economy any way. He's supposed to just do what congress tell him to. Its why the call it the "executive office"... the legislators make the plans and the president is to be in charge of executing those plans. Obama received millions from corporate donors and therefore he is a fascist politician in a fascist system... you may as well be showing the positive aspects of Stalin or Hitler. People say its so unfair to compare Hitler and Stalin to current presidents. No, its fair. "Modern" politicians in the USA get their money from corporations, and the definition of the merger of corporation and state is fascism.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Clearly ATS mods are not that stupid to be conveniently duped by this double entendre.

When is someone going to take a stand on this?

Well, I personally had no intention to offend you or anybody else. From the list I picked this up, nobody acted offended at all. I'm sure a search on twitter will show the title used, too.

Anyways, I consider this thread failed because of cultural difference of how people use slang terms and the effort shown how some felt it was offensive. Obviously to the WoW crowd, it is a common thing found. As I've been exposed to that crowd, I didn't think it would harm people here. I've heard much worse on this website. Why make an example out of me?

EDIT: BTW, I still think "teabag" and "tea-party" are coincidence terms in likeness. I thought nothing of the other when I copy-n-pasted the title into this thread.

[edit on 5-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Let me use an analogy.... if I had a jar of cookies, and stated taking them out. And I started taking these cookies out in 1s and 2s, then I kept on but in 3s and 4s. They were good and I did so even faster in 4s and 5s, the removal rate would be much the same as the jobs loss chart, and then I slowed...4-5 was down to 3-4 and then 2-3 cookies, until I was removing the cookies at 1-2 at a time ...because I was running out of cookies. Eventually, when the cookies were all gone...the rate would be 0.

Likewise, the jobless rate due to normal up/down 30year cycles, increased and supposedly is decreasing...UNFORTUNATELY, there are fewer and fewer jobs around to lose.
Last Tuesday, the Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, and a few others reported that the US suffered the worst single one day JOB LOSS in our history.
The current unemployment rate has gone down...you know why? They do not count all of those unemployed that have given up on finding a job...current rate is more accurately 17%+. We are now approaching rates not seen since the Great Depression.
If El Presidente' Osamabamadama gets the tax hikes he wants, the economy will suffer. If he gets the deficit spending bill he wants, our economy will suffer. If he allows the Fed to keep printing money( which drives the value down into 3rd world levels), the economy suffers. If you want to see where we are going, read a history of the Weimer Republic of Germany about 1920-1925...groceries go up by the hour, riots in the streets from massive job losses...already happening in France, Spain, Greece.... will happen here too.
OBAMA...Hope and Change...I just HOPE I have some CHANGE left

Brilliantly phrased! You explained what I was thinking. If you rework the numbers, redefine the definitions, and LIE about it all WE HAVE THE BEST FREAKIN ECONOMY IN WRITTEN HISTORY!

I don't put it all on Obama (bless his heart, he's just to stupid and arrogant as to hide his Marxism). This goes back to Nixon (overtly) and opening trade with China. Cheap prices due to slave labor gave companies a cheap out and less jobs here. No jobs, no money. No money, no economy.

I would wager that unemployment TRUE numbers are higher in the 2 digit range. I would say 25 - 30 percent in certain areas. I know several folks without jobs right now and this is Texas. We, usually, have a better economy than most.

Originally posted by truthquest
The only chart you need to be looking at is the chart of debts.

Is debt and deficit differently included in such 'chart of debts'?

How would deficit show differently than debt in such chart? And, do you think deficit affect jobs differently than how debt affect jobs?

reply to post by dzonatas


Even a [bleep] like you should understand that you don't start off an intelligent conversation by insulting some part of the group. Your original post was typical of condescending liberal talking points. It seems to me that you intended to say exactly what you did.

As for Nancy Pelosi, she not widely known to be a "fountain of truth."