reply to post by Maxmars
By the way.. this is not in the politics forum because this is not about partisanship. It's about how they "use" information... force it to say what
they want it to say when it suits them... and distract us from it, when they can't.
And you have just done exactly that... "used" information to force it to say what you
want it to say, in order to distract your readers from
the reality of a relatively good set of statistics that pays the lie to one side of the political fence. You
do so by trying to shift attention
to a relatively ugly set of statistics that you
think can be sheeted home to the opposite side of the political fence.
Or perhaps it is your source that is doing the twisting, and you are just too gullible to see their propaganda shouting at you: "don't believe their
lies, believe ours".
What ever the case, you
open the discussion talking about jobs. The undeniable facts about jobs are that private sector jobs are up, public
sector jobs are down. The total is up but not as much as if public sector jobs had stayed steady, let alone gone up. There is only one side of the
political fence to blame that on, and it isn't the current President.
attempt to shift the discussion to one of household net worth over a 7 year window, which has absolutely zero to do with short term
employment gains or losses and everything to do with housing market crash that occurred in 2007. Of course "household net worth" is down since 2005.
People used to have houses that, on paper, were worth a million bucks and are now only worth a few hundred thousand, or they've lost the house
altogether. Again, there is only one side of the political fence to blame that on, and again it isn't the current President.
The lesson to be learned, is learn to think for your self, and stop relying on any media outlet (or worse random internet propaganda blogs) as the
gospel truth. Identify the propaganda wars. Who is responding to a specific set of facts, and who is trying to distract you with a different set of
unrelated facts. Who's fact set is relevant to the specific discussion and who is trying to blow smoke up your excretory orifice?
Now for the real kicker. Have you actually bothered to look at the Feds statistics that your article claims shows a 40% decline between 2005 and 2012?
Because I have. It is right here: Balance Sheet of Household and non-Profit
Interesting definition of 40% decline:
2005 = 73366.8 billion
2012Q1 = 76298.2
2005 = 12142.5 billion
2012Q1 = 13432.6
2005 = 61224.3
2012Q1 = 62865.6
My rudimentary calculation indicates that that is about a 2.5% growth
in net worth over those years. Not exactly stupendous, but a darn sight
better than a 40% decline, wouldn't you say? Maybe that's why the mainstream media is not pushing that 40% decline story - because it is bovine
Perhaps you should reevaluate your source material, but more importantly learn how to find out when you are being lied to.
Edit: Oh, sorry. I just reread your post and I see that the 'counter' argument is using the 2005-2010 time frame even though the 2012Q1 figures are
So they are using unrelated statistics that are 2 years out of date to attack the credibility of a statement about current
President: "look todays private sector employment figures look good"
Opponent: "yeah but two years ago housing values were way down"
And the 2010 numbers weren't 40% down on 2005 anyway. No where near it. I didn't calculate it but it looks more like 2% to me.
You really, really need to start thinking about what you are reading.
edit on 17/7/2012 by rnaa because: correct time frame
edit on 17/7/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)