Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC
638 posts, read 927,005 times
Reputation: 236

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Yeah, remember when Bill Clinton (R) passed NAFTA?

How has that been working out for you guys in Detroit?
GM will build plant in central Mexico

You guys just look sooooo cute when you do what you are told, vote the party line and remember to fight those republicans and their McJobs.
Ummmm and when was NAFTA conceived? 1986 under lord and savior Ronald Regan. Who signed NAFTA into existence December 17, 1992? Why none other than HW Bush. I love how people when speaking of the ills of NAFTA forget the key players of such said deal. Namely the Republicans....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2011, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,698,588 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Now for some facts.

At the bottom of the DWD release is this disclaimer:



http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsrel...june_state.pdf
Well thanks for restating exactly what Walker said!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,698,588 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Not so fast:

“We made it very clear at our announcement that (our number) was not half of all the jobs out there, though it is an interesting parallel,” Walker said.

Updated: Governor discusses value of new Wisconsin jobs | Wausau Daily Herald | wausaudailyherald.com

An explanation why the OP is misleading:
What’s going on here?

In short, Walker, the state GOP and the others touting the national numbers are making a flawed comparison. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does separate national and state-by-state studies, each with different parameters and margins of error. The agency says it’s wrong to mix the two estimates -- a warning included as a footnote on the documents themselves.

Here’s how they put it:

"State estimation procedures are designed to produce accurate data for each individual state. (The bureau) independently develops the national employment series and does not force state estimates to sum to national totals nor vice versa.

"Because each state series is subject to larger sampling and nonsampling errors than the national series, summing them cumulates individual state levels errors and can cause significant distortions at an aggregate level. Due to these statistical limitations, (the bureau) does not compile a ‘sum of states’ employment series and cautions users that such a series is subject to a relatively large and volatile error structure."

In short, the bureau says you can’t accurately use the individual state jobs reports to make a national comparison. Or even shorter: Don’t do it.
PolitiFact Wisconsin | Wisconsin Republican Party says more than half the nation's job growth in June came from Wisconsin

What's with you guys? You just quoted Walker then go on to say something you quote him as not saying. Sheesh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 03:59 PM
 
253 posts, read 201,061 times
Reputation: 145
Ok, a job in the tourism industry is seasonal here for the most part. So while the numbers indicate jobs have increased, it's convenient because those numbers increased just as the tourist season was kicking off. What do you want to bet those same numbers decrease when those very same jobs end at the end of the season?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 06:10 PM
 
77,814 posts, read 59,987,722 times
Reputation: 49195
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDCJoe View Post
Ummmm and when was NAFTA conceived? 1986 under lord and savior Ronald Regan. Who signed NAFTA into existence December 17, 1992? Why none other than HW Bush. I love how people when speaking of the ills of NAFTA forget the key players of such said deal. Namely the Republicans....
Clinton (R) signed NAFTA. You can't even admit to it....or your whole world would crumble.

"But it couldn't have been a democrat! I deny your reality and replace it with my own! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

LMAO.

P.S. If you scroll the the thread you will see me making fun of the WI repubs showing seasonally increased jobs numbers as proof they are doing a great job. See, I deal in facts, reality....those silly things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:49 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,376,973 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDCJoe View Post
Ummmm and when was NAFTA conceived? 1986 under lord and savior Ronald Regan. Who signed NAFTA into existence December 17, 1992? Why none other than HW Bush. I love how people when speaking of the ills of NAFTA forget the key players of such said deal. Namely the Republicans....

Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Clinton.


Get your facts straight.


It was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and the 2000 China Trade Act.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:55 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,931,403 times
Reputation: 15038
Can someone translate this into english?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
What's with you guys? You just quoted Walker then go on to say something you quote him as not saying. Sheesh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,820,437 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDCJoe View Post
Ummmm and when was NAFTA conceived? 1986 under lord and savior Ronald Regan. Who signed NAFTA into existence December 17, 1992? Why none other than HW Bush. I love how people when speaking of the ills of NAFTA forget the key players of such said deal. Namely the Republicans....
Oh good lord. CLINTON signed NAFTA. How could you talk on the subject without knowing this simple, basic FACT?

See how hard this was?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...438l5.8.4l17l0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2011, 10:42 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,931,403 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Oh good lord. CLINTON signed NAFTA. How could you talk on the subject without knowing this simple, basic FACT?
Ah, if facts were as simple as you pretend them to be.

December 10, 1985

President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada.

November 6, 1987

Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.

August 21, 1990

President Salinas officially proposes to George H.W. Bush the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.

April 7 to 10, 1991

Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.

April 4, 1992

Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.


December 17, 1992

Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George H.W. Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.

December 8, 1993

NFTA is ratified by the Senate by a vote of 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats, and Clinton signs the act into law.

Now back in the old days, when a treaty has been negotiated by two previous presidential administrations, it has been debated and ratified by the Senate it used to be that an incoming would sign the act into law.

So that fact that Clinton was the last to put his John Hancock on a treaty doesn't exactly give critics wiggle room to dismiss the hand of the two previous administrations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2011, 02:14 AM
 
20,232 posts, read 19,799,519 times
Reputation: 13312
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
What's with you guys? You just quoted Walker then go on to say something you quote him as not saying. Sheesh.
Someone spiked their Kool Aid
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top