(08-28-2014 04:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  5% is not 7%, the post is incorrect on that point.

Thanks. That all you needed to say.

And of course that is somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant to the theme of the post.

(08-28-2014 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 04:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  5% is not 7%, the post is incorrect on that point.

Thanks. That all you needed to say.

And of course that is somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant to the theme of the post.

Its important to the water toter to differentiate between the president being really, really, really, really incompetent, and just really, really, really incompetent

I sure glad we got commietom to 'xplain stuff.


Commietom - CSNBBS Secretary Of 'Splaining Stuff

(08-28-2014 03:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you at least should be accurate and provide some sources. The first claim is bogus. I didn't bother with the rest...I know what I'll probably find.

Quote:Had Blum pulled more recent data, he would have found incomes have not dipped as much as he suggests. Sentier Research for February 2014 shows the median household income was $53,093, which is 5 percent lower, not 8 percent lower, than the median income of $55,911 in December 2007.
Still, the most recent annual numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, which are from 2012, were available. They suggest median incomes are down 4.9 percent since 2008.
Read more at http://thegazette.com/2014/04/04/fact-ch...P7PtFbI.99

So 7-8% decrease bad but 5% decrease good?

Why quibble over a few grand? Hell, it's only the difference of a family eating well or a house note to some people. I thought dems were the ones full of compassion for the working class and the poor...

(08-28-2014 03:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody is playing ignorant. You’re trying to make the difference between 7% and 5% sound like something that invalidates the basic thrust of the story—the Obamaconomy sucks. But you just admitted that yourself.

You're doing it again.

No, you are.

(08-29-2014 08:02 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 04:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 04:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  5% is not 7%, the post is incorrect on that point.

Thanks. That all you needed to say.

And of course that is somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant to the theme of the post.

Its important to the water toter to differentiate between the president being really, really, really, really incompetent, and just really, really, really incompetent

Indeed.

(07-30-2014 12:47 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 12:11 PM)VA49er Wrote:  4% is great. Let's see what it's revised to in the next couple of weeks.

Yes. I find the 4% number questionable for many reasons.

The number is ALWAYS revised so no use in getting happy/upset over whatever the first number is.

Correct...and it just revised.

Up.

U.S. Economy Grew 4.6 Percent In Second Quarter