Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama's making the economy worse

Obama's making the economy worse (Page 2)
Thread Tools
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 08:00 AM
 
I'm not sure the OP had intended to post something that apparently could be so easily debunked. If this is the best hand Obama has to play in 2012, I think he's going to need to fold. I'm not sure that most people who can see what is all around them, are going to be fooled by spun statistics. The chart leaving out all that Obama spending is classic, for instance.

The price of gas for one does play a part in people's psychological view on economic matters. Not GDP, the defecit or unemployment or any other easily spun statistics (though unemployment can play a part too - and it's STILL higher than the percentage his administration promised his policies would keep limit it to). It's the things that happens to a person's pocketbook that informs then personally as to how policies have effected them. The price of gas going up and the administration being fine with that speaks volumes.

It's almost like Obama's supporters are treating his administration like the Special Olympics of politics. He entered into the competition with some handicaps, so we really shouldn't expect him to compete with the accomplishments of real leaders - most all of which also had big challenges going into the game but seemed to overcome most of them. We're supposed to believe that lackluster performance should just be chalked to up what happened before he got there. Real leaders make real change. Jobs didn't sit back and complain about the mess he was left. He put together a plan and within a couple of years, things turned around. Reagan didn't take 8 years to start turning the Carter economy around, for instance. Obama is simply full of excuses for his un-noteworthy performance and if he had a real plan that didn't include crippling our energy resources, putting additional unnecessary regulation on business and spending like he had a hole in his pocket -all of which gives those in a position to create jobs uncertainty, we probably would have seen real reductions in things like unemployment.

GOOD LUCK OBAMA!
( Last edited by stupendousman; Feb 8, 2012 at 08:13 AM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Yes, let's thank Pres. Bush for tanking the economy, tanking the stock market, tanking the housing market, and nearly destroying the auto industry in order to bring gas prices from $4/gal to $1.85/gal.

Gas prices more than tripled under Pres. Bush, from $1.25/gal to close to $4/gal.
That was Clinton's fault.



Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's almost like Obama's supporters are treating his administration like the Special Olympics of politics. He entered into the competition with some handicaps, so we really shouldn't expect him to compete with the accomplishments of real leaders - most all of which also had big challenges going into the game but seemed to overcome most of them. We're supposed to believe that lackluster performance should just be chalked to up what happened before he got there. Real leaders make real change. Jobs didn't sit back and complain about the mess he was left. He put together a plan and within a couple of years, things turned around. Reagan didn't take 8 years to start turning the Carter economy around, for instance. Obama is simply full of excuses for his un-noteworthy performance and if he had a real plan that didn't include crippling our energy resources, putting additional unnecessary regulation on business and spending like he had a hole in his pocket -all of which gives those in a position to create jobs uncertainty, we probably would have seen real reductions in things like unemployment.

GOOD LUCK OBAMA!
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
I've met a few of those!


For some unknown reasons, corporations tend to keep those around and never let them go.
Heck, many of them are promoted to management positions

-t
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm not sure the OP had intended to post something that apparently could be so easily debunked. If this is the best hand Obama has to play in 2012, I think he's going to need to fold. I'm not sure that most people who can see what is all around them, are going to be fooled by spun statistics. The chart leaving out all that Obama spending is classic, for instance.
The numbers speak for themselves. You had GOP Presidential candidates running around for months on end claiming that the Stimulus created no private sector jobs. Yet the chart and the CBO says otherwise. But hey ... why let little things like facts get in the way of a good stump speech to the Tea Party crowd right?

As for federal spending .... again, you have to be intellectually honest and measure that by the policies a President advocated and signed into law if you are going to saddle him with that. As I mentioned before, if President Obama had come into office and sat on his hands ... you'd STILL have over a trillion dollar per year deficit due to the policies already enacted into law by the Bush Administration. Now turtle777 simply ducked the fundamental point with commentary about how "The POTUS is NOT elected to do nothing." Ok fine. But a dismissal is not a rebuttal! And at the end of the day Civics 101 still applies. The President does not enact legislation. He can only advocate for those policies he wishes to implement or change. And sign law into legislation or veto it. The main contributor to the trillion dollar deficits we are experiencing are the Bush Tax Cuts. President Obama advocated that they be allowed to expire for the wealthy. The GOP members of Congress abjectly refused. So who's to blame now for their continued contributions to the deficits that our good friends on the right supposedly abhor? Two unfunded wars contribute massively to the deficit. But the GOP members of Congress have nothing but criticism for President Obama's efforts to wind them down responsibly. Ask these critics to define specifically how they would measure "victory" ... and at best you will get platitudes and jingoism. So the only logical conclusion one can come to is what they really support is war without end. But when the bills start piling up for such international adventurism .... they want to act like they had nothing to do with running up the credit card! Which one of these GOP members of Congress who voted for Medicare Part D is prepared to tell their constituents "Oh ... my bad. We never did pay for that Prescription Drug Benefit for Grandma and now it's crushing the finances of the federal government. We're going to have to take that away from you now. Oops. Sorry." Not a single one of them! But you can best believe that they will point the finger at President Obama because the huge expenses are being incurred under his watch BY LAW ... due to the legislation they enacted years ago.

So again I ask the question. How do you define "Obama spending"? How do you define "Obama deficits"? Is it simply money spent and deficits incurred since he's been in office? Or is your analysis more substantive than that?

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Now turtle777 simply ducked the fundamental point with commentary about how "The POTUS is NOT elected to do nothing." Ok fine. But a dismissal is not a rebuttal! And at the end of the day Civics 101 still applies. The President does not enact legislation. He can only advocate for those policies he wishes to implement or change.
You are seriously dillusional if you think that the policies enacted during 2009 and 2010 were NOT exactly lined up with Obama's ideas. Heck, the Democrats had the majority in the House AND Senate. Need I say more ?
If Obama didn't like the legislation, he could have vetoed it. But he didn't. Because he LIKED what was happening.

He increased our national debt by more than $6 Trillion. He FAILED at arresting the root cause of our current economic crisis, which is DEBT. He bought into this voodoo-bullshit economic thinking that you can solve a debt problem by taking on more debt.

And before you guys start yelling and screaming "It's Bush's fault" - yes, Bush was none better than Obama in that regard. Ron Paul is one of the few sane politicians that really understand our debt problem. Forget the established political elite on both sides of the aisle.

-t
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 07:03 PM
 
@@@ turtle777

Here you go. If you have an actual rebuttal please present it. The fact that you keep repeating that "$6 trillion" figure demonstrates either downright obfuscation or simple ignorance of the legislative process on your part.



How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway?

There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right.

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities was kind enough to help me come up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. As it explained to me, it’s harder than it sounds.

Obama, for instance, is clearly responsible for the stimulus. The health-care law, too.

When Obama entered office, the Bush tax cuts were already in place and two wars were ongoing. Is it fair to blame Obama for war costs four months after he was inaugurated, or tax collections 10 days after he took office?

So the center built a baseline that includes everything that predated Obama and everything we knew about the path of the economy and the actual trajectory of spending through August 2011. Deviations from the baseline represent decisions made by the Obama administration. Then we measured the projected cost of Obama’s policies.

In two instances, this made Obama’s policies look more costly. First, both Democrats and Republicans tend to think the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a quirky budget technicality, and their full extension should be assumed. In that case, voting for their extension looks costless, and they cannot be blamed for the resulting increase in deficits. I consider that a dodge, and so I added Obama’s decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years — at a total cost of $620 billion — to his total. If Obama follows through on his promise to extend all the cuts for income under $250,000 in 2013, it will add trillions more to the deficit.

The other judgment call was when to end the analysis. After 10 years? After the first term? We chose 2017, the end of a hypothetical second term. Those are the years Obama might be blamed for, so they seemed like the ones to watch. But Obama’s spending is frontloaded, and his savings are backloaded. The stimulus bill, for instance, is mostly finished. But the Budget Control Act is expected to save $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade. If our numbers were extended further, the analysis would have reflected more of Obama’s planned deficit reduction.

There’s also the issue of who deserves credit for what. In this analysis, anything Obama signed is attributed to Obama. But reality is more complicated. The $2.1 trillion debt-ceiling deal wouldn’t have happened without the Republicans. But a larger deficit-reduction deal — one including tax increases and spending cuts — might have.

In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.
Column: Doing the math on Obamas deficits - The Washington Post

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Feb 8, 2012 at 07:19 PM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
@@@ turtle777

Here you go. If you have an actual rebuttal please present it.
Rebuttal of WHAT ?

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time cutting to the chase of your posts.

Oh, and the link that you posted is bullshit. Cost of Obama policies less than $1 Trillion ? WTF ? So the remaining $5.5T is Santa's fault ?

-t
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Rebuttal of WHAT ?

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time cutting to the chase of your posts.

-t
Demonstrate where the mathematical analysis of the cumulative impact of Obama's policies on the long-term debt is incorrect. I've presented my argument. And now just backed it up with an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The numbers either add up or they don't. If they don't ... then it shouldn't be all that difficult to come up with a rebuttal.

OAW
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Oh, and the link that you posted is bullshit. Cost of Obama policies less than $1 Trillion ? WTF ? So the remaining $5.5T is Santa's fault ?
While I appreciate the cleverness and humor of your "Santa's fault" riposte ... at the end of the day that's still not a rebuttal. It's not BS simply because you say so. The numbers are what they are. Federal deficits are most definitely impacted by tax policy and spending policy. So the question then becomes ... how does one attribute responsibility for said policies at the Presidential level? My contention is that it is intellectually dishonest to saddle President Obama with the responsibility for the deficits being incurred now as a result of legislation passed and signed into law before he took office. My contention is also that he is indeed responsible for the deficit impact of the legislation passed since he's been in office and he's chosen to sign. That's the fundamental premise that I'm operating with here. So the mathematical analysis flows from there. So here's the deal ...

1. If you accept the premise I've outlined, then demonstrate where the mathematical analysis that follows is in error.

or .....

2. If you don't accept the premise I've outlined, then please present a logical argument for why it is flawed. And propose a different premise along with your reasoning for why it is more sound.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Feb 8, 2012 at 07:42 PM. )
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Originally Posted by Washington Post
The health-care law is expected to save more than a trillion dollars in its second decade.
...
And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.
I was surprised they put health care in the "reduction" category. Can someone explain this to me?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I was surprised they put health care in the "reduction" category. Can someone explain this to me?
On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act, which encompassed the effects of both pieces of legislation. Table 1 (on page 5) provides a broad summary and Table 2 offers a detailed breakdown of the budgetary effects of the two pieces of legislation. CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions. Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations (those are discussed on pages 10-11 of the cost estimate).
Congressional Budget Office - Health Care

OAW
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 08:47 PM
 
I don't get it. Where does the money come from?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2012, 08:53 PM
 
^^^^^

A combinations of taxes and spending cuts. One criticism that has merit is that the program collects new taxes for4 years before the spending kicks it. But CBO only scores the legislation that is paper for a 10 year outlook. So some argue that 10 years of taxes paying for 6 years of spending is untenable in the long run. It's my understanding that even with this seemingly absurd financing mechanism the longer term deficit reduction savings are even more substantial. I'd have to dig around to find those projections. But there's something to be said for the CBO not issuing projections over 10 years. There's simply too many variables to produce an accurate projection one way or the other when you go out that far.

OAW
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 07:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The numbers speak for themselves. You had GOP Presidential candidates running around for months on end claiming that the Stimulus created no private sector jobs. Yet the chart and the CBO says otherwise. But hey ... why let little things like facts get in the way of a good stump speech to the Tea Party crowd right?

As for federal spending .... again, you have to be intellectually honest and measure that by the policies a President advocated and signed into law if you are going to saddle him with that. As I mentioned before, if President Obama had come into office and sat on his hands ... you'd STILL have over a trillion dollar per year deficit due to the policies already enacted into law by the Bush Administration.
He didn't "sit on his hands." He added a significant amount more than Bush, while Bush invested heavily in the defense of our country after we were attacked by terrorists. That sort of thing costs real money and the defense of our country is something that only our government can do. Almost all of the stuff Obama engaged new spending on went toward paying off Democrat constituencies and unwise investments. For instance, spending millions of dollars to get less than that in equivalent paying jobs doesn't really make a lot of sense.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 09:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
He didn't "sit on his hands." He added a significant amount more than Bush, while Bush invested heavily in the defense of our country after we were attacked by terrorists.
Debatable. For example, one of Bush's major "defence" investments was to invade Iraq. The defensive value of this investment is questionable since Iraq posed no threat to the US.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Demonstrate where the mathematical analysis of the cumulative impact of Obama's policies on the long-term debt is incorrect.
WTF ? "mathematical analysis of the cumulative impact" ?
Do you even understand what you're babbling here ?
This doesn't make any sense. Stop trying to look smart by randomly copy & pasting stuff from teh intarwebs.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I've presented my argument.
No, you presented a link, and some voodoo-pseudo-economic sounding nonsense.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The numbers either add up or they don't. If they don't ... then it shouldn't be all that difficult to come up with a rebuttal.
I told you, they don't add up.

US debt 4 years ago: $9.4T
U.S. National Debt Clock 2008
US debt today: $ 15.3T
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

According to your link, Obama's policies added only $1T in debt.
Obviously, "someone" added the difference. Who was it ?

I say: Obama as the president is directly or indirectly responsible.
He managed to ADD to our future debt (with Obama Care), so he could have managed to reduce our debt by other measures. He did NOT.

No matter how you twist it: he either caused the debt, or ALLOWED it. I don't care which one it is. Under his watch, the US debt exploded.

-t
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
WTF ? "mathematical analysis of the cumulative impact" ?
Do you even understand what you're babbling here ?
Yes I do. Apparently it's going over your head so allow me to break it down for you:

1. Baseline the federal budget at the end of the Clinton Administration. Projected surpluses for the next 10 years based upon legislation in effect at the time. As President Clinton said in his 1998 SOTU address:

Originally Posted by President Clinton
If we maintain our resolve, we will produce balanced budgets as far as the eye can see.
2. Now look at the legislation that President G.W. Bush supported and signed into law along with the policies enacted as Commander in Chief. Examine its impact on the federal budget. Such legislation and policies significantly reduced revenues (e.g. Bush Tax cuts) and massively increased spending (e.g. Afghanistan & Iraq wars, Medicare Part D, etc.) resulting in a marked shift of the federal budget from surplus to deficit. Now let's call the deficits incurred under the Bush Administration directly as a result of this legislation and policies B1. And let's call the deficits projected for the next 10 years (assuming they were to remain in effect) directly as a result of this legislation and policies B2.

3. Now look at the legislation that President Obama supported and signed into law along with the policies enacted as Commander in Chief. Examine its impact on the federal budget. Such legislation and policies significantly reduced revenues (e.g. Stimulus Program tax cuts, Payroll tax cuts, etc.) and massively increased short-term spending (e.g. Stimulus Program spending, Auto Bailout, TARP, etc.) while also reducing spending (e.g. winding down the Iraq war, etc.) .... resulting in an increase in the federal budget deficit. Now let's call the deficits incurred under the Obama Administration directly as a result of this legislation and policies O1. And let's call the deficits projected for the next 10 years (assuming they were to remain in effect) directly as a result of this legislation and policies O2.

Stay tuned ....

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
This doesn't make any sense. Stop trying to look smart by randomly copy & pasting stuff from teh intarwebs.
Look smart? Dude I am smart. My academic background speaks to this by any measure. Graduated from one of the top private high schools in the country followed by a private university ranked in the top 20 in the Midwest. ACT and SAT scores. GPA. Class Rank. Honor Societies. 90+ Percentile on every standardized test I've ever taken in life. Not to mention plain old everyday common sense. So let's not even go there .... because the only one who seems to be having difficulty grasping this concept is YOU. As evidenced by ....

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
No, you presented a link, and some voodoo-pseudo-economic sounding nonsense.
I told you, they don't add up.

US debt 4 years ago: $9.4T
U.S. National Debt Clock 2008
US debt today: $ 15.3T
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

According to your link, Obama's policies added only $1T in debt.
Obviously, "someone" added the difference. Who was it ?
So let me bring this on home for you.

4. The point that doesn't seem to be registering with you is that the total deficit incurred to date under the Obama Administration is NOT the O1 figured listed above. It is 3 years worth of B2 + O1. IOW, three years worth of the projected deficits set in motion by Bush Administration legislation and policies that became actual incurred deficits during the Obama Administration ... along with 3 years worth of actual incurred deficits set in motion by Obama Administration legislation and policies.

Furthermore, the figure cited in the link I posted does NOT say that President Obama's policies "added only $1T in debt". What it says is that if you project the CUMULATIVE COST of the legislation that President Obama has signed and the policies he enacted OVER 10 YEARS ... then the net effect of that will be approximately $1T added to the national debt. Referring back to the breakdown above this is O1 + O2. Why? Because the spending was front-loaded whereas the savings are back-loaded. Spending that exceeds that $1T has already taken place but cuts scheduled to take effect in the future by law will make some of that up bringing the overall figure back down to approximately $1T. Not to mention that B2 is still around so the 10 year deficit projection from the day President Obama was inaugurated consists of B2 + O1 + O2. And guess what? From 2009 - 2019 B2 far exceeds O1+O2.

Get it now? Not so much? ... Damn!

The only other way I can try to explain this to you is with a pretty basic analogy. Say there's a single man named John and he meets this single girl named Jane. Now Jane likes to shop ... and she's run up a credit card bill of $10K. Which of course incurs a monthly interest expense. Plus she signed a contract for 2 year gym membership that automatically bills the card an extra $100/month. Now John and Jane decide to get married and they agree for John to handle the household finances. Right after the wedding John goes out and buys a new MacBook Air and related accessories for $2K with Jane's credit card. John would also like to cut back on some of the monthly outlays and cancel the gym membership contract ... but A) it's a contract with costly cancellation penalties, and B) Jane really likes going to the gym and is firmly opposed to cancellation because she doesn't' want to get fat. Since John is merely the head of household and not a dictator ... the gym membership remains intact. Also, Jane really values her "quality time" with John so she also blocks his suggestion to get a part-time job to hustle up some additional income. So the question then becomes ... how much has John spent in their first month of matrimony? The $2K for the laptop + the $100 for the gym membership + the interest expense on the entire $12K credit card balance? Or the $2K for the laptop + the interest expense on $2K of the credit card balance? If you said the latter then you are finally getting it. If not ... then I'd suggest you are being willfully obtuse and there's simply no hope for you.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Feb 9, 2012 at 07:18 PM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 07:23 PM
 


tl;dr

It's all spin bullshit. FACT is the US debt went up by Trillions. You try to obfuscate with a lot of words that don't make sense, and no facts or links.

Look smart? Dude I am smart. My academic background speaks to this by any measure. Graduated from one of the top private high schools in the country followed by a private university ranked in the top 20 in the Midwest. ACT and SAT scores. GPA. Class Rank. Honor Societies. 90+ Percentile on every standardized test I've ever taken in life. Not to mention plain old everyday common sense. So let's not even go there .... because the only one who seems to be having difficulty grasping this concept is YOU. As evidenced by ....
Seriously, you obviously got the greater dick background.

You're too smart for me.

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 07:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


tl;dr

It's all spin bullshit. FACT is the US debt went up by Trillions. You try to obfuscate with a lot of words that don't make sense, and no facts or links.



Seriously, you obviously got the greater dick background.

You're too smart for me.

-t
And if you compare Pres. Obama with Pres. Reagan, Pres. Reagan sucks more.

Pres. Reagan tripled the national debt, had the highest unemployment rate, and had the lowest workforce participation rate.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


tl;dr

It's all spin bullshit. FACT is the US debt went up by Trillions. You try to obfuscate with a lot of words that don't make sense, and no facts or links.


What a dodge.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by boy8cookie View Post


What a dodge.
I posted facts and links before, but obviously, that was too simplistic.

-t
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


tl;dr
My entire post wouldn't take any more than a minute or so to read. So apparently this is a reflection of your limited attention span.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
:
It's all spin bullshit. FACT is the US debt went up by Trillions. You try to obfuscate with a lot of words that don't make sense, and no facts or links.
It's not obfuscation. It's simple mathematics. You're simply pulling a CRASH move and arguing a point that's not in dispute. Of course the debt has gone up. The million dollar question is .... whose policies are responsible for that? You subscribe to the rather simplistic notion that whoever was President at the time the debt is incurred is responsible for every dollar of that. And if you are the typical conservative this standard only applies when a Democrat is in the White House. Even if said President had nothing to do with the policies that piled up a major portion of that red ink. And when it's pointed out to you with "facts and links" to show why this is intellectually dishonest .... you choose to say "TL;DR" and stick your head in the sand. And what's worse is that you claim I had "no facts or links" ... but apparently fail to remember that you just said this a few posts up!

Originally Posted by turtle777
No, you presented a link, and some voodoo-pseudo-economic sounding nonsense.
So did I "present a link" ... or did I not? Or is it just that you didn't comprehend what the article was saying? I challenged you earlier to either A) counter the premise and present a better alternative, or B) accept the premise and show where the mathematical analysis in the article (and my posts) is flawed. Thus far you have done neither. Again ... a dismissal is not a rebuttal. You only seem to be able to come up with the former. And that speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by turtle777
Seriously, you obviously got the greater dick background.

You're too smart for me.
You said it .... not me.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Feb 9, 2012 at 09:47 PM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Of course the debt has gone up. The million dollar question is .... whose policies are responsible for that?
I never said that. Can you read ?

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You subscribe to the rather simplistic notion that whoever was President at the time the debt is incurred is responsible for every dollar of that.
The President is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING during his watch, even if he's not CAUSING it.

May I quote Obama:

OBAMA: Well, here's what I remember, is that when I came into office, I knew I was going to have a big mess to clean up [...]
And what I continue to believe is that ultimately the buck stops with me. I'm going to be accountable.
Obama: "Ultimately the buck stops with me. I'm going to be accountable." – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

So, tell me, does Obama think he's responsible or not ?
HE is accountable for the debt going up. Period.

-t
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 09:56 PM
 
I was going to come up with a metaphor to help you understand OAW's point, but he's already done that, and it didn't help. Instead, I offer this:

You should change your name from turtle to ram, as in, dodge ram.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The President is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING during his watch, even if he's not CAUSING it.

May I quote Obama:



Obama: "Ultimately the buck stops with me. I'm going to be accountable." – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

So, tell me, does Obama think he's responsible or not ?
HE is accountable for the debt going up. Period.

-t
There is a difference between being responsible and being blamed. Obama knows that as far as th public is concerned, the buck will stop with him. Anyone with any sense can see he didn't cause these problems. He is responsible for trying to fix them, not for causing them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The President is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING during his watch, even if he's not CAUSING it.
So Pres. Bush was responsible for 9/11.
So Pres. Bush was responsible for Enron scandal.
So Pres. Bush was responsible for gas prices going from $1.25/gal to $4/gal.
So Pres. Bush was responsible for the housing marking collapse, financial market collapse, the world economy collapsing, and the auto industry collapsing.


Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post

May I quote Obama:



Obama: "Ultimately the buck stops with me. I'm going to be accountable." – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

So, tell me, does Obama think he's responsible or not ?
HE is accountable for the debt going up. Period.

-t
May I quote Mitt Romney: "I don't care about the very poor"

What even happened to context? Pres. Obama was talking about jobs and job creation.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 10:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The President is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING during his watch, even if he's not CAUSING it.
If he's not causing the problems, what's with your "stepping on the gas" argument you make frequently WRT Obama?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 10:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I never said that. Can you read ?
No the question is can YOU read? You quote my comments where A) I AGREED with you that the debt has gone up, and then B) ASKED a question about who was responsible. Yet you respond to that by saying "I never said that." WTF!

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The President is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING during his watch, even if he's not CAUSING it.

May I quote Obama:

Obama: "Ultimately the buck stops with me. I'm going to be accountable." – CNN Press Room - CNN.com Blogs

So, tell me, does Obama think he's responsible or not ?
HE is accountable for the debt going up. Period.
Now that has to be the most absolutely ridiculous sh*t you've posted in this thread!

Again, he's a President ... not a King. And the last time I checked Presidents don't pass legislation. So when the GOP members of Congress fought tooth and nail against allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for the wealthy and held the Payroll Tax Holiday along with the extension of Unemployment Benefits for the majority of Americans hostage to this INSANE POLICY (constantly yakking about the "job creators" despite the FACT that there was 8 years of evidence from the Bush Administration showing that it did NOT result in a net increase in American jobs) ... even though they are the engine that drives the AGGREGATE DEMAND that's fundamental to economic recovery and thereby deficit reduction ... that was Obama's fault huh? Wow ... Rush Limbaugh was right. He really is a Magic Negro.

Perhaps a recap of my very favorite School House Rock episode is in order. Because apparently you either don't realize that there is a Legislative and Executive branch of government ... or you just have a poor understanding of Civics 101 and don't recall what each one does.

Boy: Woof! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?

I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.


Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.

Bill: Well I got this far. When I started, I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local Congressman and he said, "You're right, there oughta be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.

I'm just a bill
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I'm stuck in committee
And I'll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.

How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.


Boy: Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?

Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.

Boy: Die?

Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Oooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.

Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?

Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.

Boy: Oh no!

Bill: Oh yes!

I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the President to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.

How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the President can still say no?

Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old...

Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?

Bill: No!

But how I hope and I pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Congressman: He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law!

Bill: Oh yes!!!
Remember?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Feb 9, 2012 at 10:47 PM. )
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by boy8cookie View Post
I was going to come up with a metaphor to help you understand OAW's point, but he's already done that, and it didn't help. Instead, I offer this:

You should change your name from turtle to ram, as in, dodge ram.
Now that right there is pure comedy gold!

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 10:44 PM
 
Hey, OAW: *plonk*

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No the question is can YOU read? You quote my comments where A) I AGREED with you that the debt has gone up, and then B) ASKED a question about who was responsible. Yet you respond to that by saying "I never said that." WTF!



Now that has to be the most absolutely ridiculous sh*t you've posted in this thread!

Again, he's a President ... not a King. And the last time I checked Presidents don't pass legislation. So when the GOP members of Congress fought tooth and nail against allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for the wealthy and held the Payroll Tax Holiday along with the extension of Unemployment Benefits for the majority of Americans hostage to this INSANE POLICY (constantly yakking about the "job creators" despite the FACT that there was 8 years of evidence from the Bush Administration showing that it did NOT result in a net increase in American jobs) ... even though they are the engine that drives the AGGREGATE DEMAND that's fundamental to economic recovery and thereby deficit reduction ... that was Obama's fault huh? Wow ... Rush Limbaugh was right. He really is a Magic Negro.

Perhaps a recap of my very favorite School House Rock episode is in order. Because apparently you either don't realize that there is a Legislative and Executive branch of government ... or you just have a poor understanding of Civics 101 and don't recall what each one does.



Remember?

OAW


You do realize that that cartoon bill was an anti-semite, don't you?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Hey, OAW: *plonk*

-t

Are we playing charades now?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You do realize that that cartoon bill was an anti-semite, don't you?
It's been quite some time since I've seen the actual cartoon. But from the transcript I posted I'd have to say that's a bit of a stretch. And look at this guy! Seems fairly harmless to me.



OAW

PS: Of course, the evening is getting on and I'm sipping on one of these new Bud Light Platinums so I can't really say if you are being facetious or not.
( Last edited by OAW; Feb 9, 2012 at 10:58 PM. )
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2012, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post


For some unknown reasons, corporations tend to keep those around and never let them go.
Heck, many of them are promoted to management positions
Peter Principle
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW
Some problems with this.
  • First off, the automatic spending cuts are the product of a deadlock in the super-committee resulting in The Budget Control Act passed last August mandating that a failure of the supercommittee and Congress to act on further deficit reduction will trigger across-the-board cuts in both defense and non-defense programs, starting in 2013. There isn't a pundit from the right or left who believes they're going to follow through on them. We're counting these as cuts nearly two years before a dime has been cut and Congress has already begun determining ways out of the mandate?
  • Let's not pretend we don't understand how the CBO works. Legislation is drafted and the information is provided for the CBO. The CBO is a bipartisan committee that runs the numbers you give them and as a result have been on both sides of this issue. The CBO has also found that Obamacare will result in the loss of 800,000 jobs, gross Medicare outlays exceeding $1 trillion dollars, health care spending will increase by around $800 billion between 2014 and 2019, and increase drug prices to name a few positions I'm certain you'd not be so quick to parrot. Of course, if we're going to count cuts that won't happen for two years, (and I argue won't happen at all) we'll have to consider the spending projections as well...

    CBO: Obamacare Would Cost Over $2 Trillion
    To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come. But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

    To Uncle's question, where is the money coming from? According to the CBO, diverting $1.1 trillion away from Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, by increasing taxes four years in advance of the plan's first year, and cuts of $25,000 in Medicare Advantage benefits per enrollee. Unless you're in Florida of course as they've been granted exemptions from this provision not unlike numerous other industries and unions receiving waivers from Obamacare. In short, we all will help pick up the tab for Obamacare and the waivers/give-a-ways necessary to garner support for a measure you and I will be subjected to.
  • Medicare Part D: Did Obama address this issue while enjoying a majority Democratic House and Senate? Nope. In fact, he's bolstered the plan with additional entitlements and expenditures. He's made quite a few new friends in the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry. He owns a large chunk of this expenditure.
  • Iraq: Obama opposed Iraq and a subsequent surge while initiating one upon taking office. He is now pulling troops out of Iraq on a timetable decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. If Obama can stand aside Nouri al-Maliki and take credit for Bush doctrine, he should be assuming at least a large portion of the expenditure in bearing it out. Your chart dismisses this little fact.
  • Afghanistan: Obama supported action in Afghanistan before and after taking office and authorized a surge there as well. At least a large portion of our expenditure in Afghanistan was strictly Obama's doing. Your chart dismisses this little fact.

Of course, then there's Libya, another $25 billion proposed for the banking industry in an attempt to continue inflating a housing industry that desperately needs to bottom out to name a few more expenditures. Notwithstanding the prospect of another 4 years of "change" with no pressure to win another term.

Is Obama making the economy worse? Yes, in all the same ways Bush did and then some and... you ain't seen nuthin' yet.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Hey, OAW: *plonk*

-t
That's the funniest thing I've ever read!



I'm with turtle!
[the whole dodge "ram" thing was not funny. Nope, not funny at all.]
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2012, 07:33 PM
 
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So Conservative Hero Pres. Reagan was the worst Republican president?

Pres. Reagan's deficit spending as a percentage of GDP is twice the amount of Pres. Carter.

Seems to me that Pres. Reagan was a borrow and spend kinda guy. Even conservative media like the weekly standard can't hide how crappy a president Ronald Reagan was in the graph. They just chose to ignore the fact.

Did you know the Pres. Reagan tripled the national debt? That's all the previous president's debt combined times 2! That's crazy nuts. Worst president ever!

So where was the "liberal media" on how crappy a President Ronald Reagan was in the past 30 years?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So Conservative Hero Pres. Reagan was the worst Republican president?

Pres. Reagan's deficit spending as a percentage of GDP is twice the amount of Pres. Carter.
The question would be what that spending garnered (and whether the spending was on Contsitutional priorities), and also, who was in charge of the "pursestrings?" at the time. A President without control of Congress can only spend what they will let them. Up until 9/11, we were getting a huge return on the investments Reagan made with the "peace dividend" Clinton enjoyed in the 90's as well.

So, while it would have been great had Reagan been able to invest in the important stuff without also letting the left-leaning Congress have what they wanted and run up debt, his goals were important enough to him to make the sacrifice. We may still be in a Cold War had Reagan not acted.

Reagan's stated goal was to defeat the Soviets and end the Cold War. He succeeded. Obama's stated goal was to keep unemployment under a certain percentage. He failed. If you want to go comparing Reagan to Carter or Obama, you're welcome to, but it probably isn't going to end up how you thought when you try.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The question would be what that spending garnered (and whether the spending was on Contsitutional priorities), and also, who was in charge of the "pursestrings?" at the time. A President without control of Congress can only spend what they will let them. Up until 9/11, we were getting a huge return on the investments Reagan made with the "peace dividend" Clinton enjoyed in the 90's as well.

So, while it would have been great had Reagan been able to invest in the important stuff without also letting the left-leaning Congress have what they wanted and run up debt, his goals were important enough to him to make the sacrifice. We may still be in a Cold War had Reagan not acted.

Reagan's stated goal was to defeat the Soviets and end the Cold War. He succeeded. Obama's stated goal was to keep unemployment under a certain percentage. He failed. If you want to go comparing Reagan to Carter or Obama, you're welcome to, but it probably isn't going to end up how you thought when you try.


It should be noted for our friends on the left that Reagan was duped into signing the measure in order to get the tax cuts he wanted. Still, Obama is banking on similar growth pulling us through spending into a better economy, but where he's failing is that he is also advocating anti-growth policies. You cannot grow through spending with policies that hinder growth.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 01:25 PM
 
Guys, stop feeding that anti-Reagan / anti-Bush troll.

Don't you notice that he's just baiting me & you ? I've long had him on ignore, you should do the same.

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post


It should be noted for our friends on the left that Reagan was duped into signing the measure in order to get the tax cuts he wanted. Still, Obama is banking on similar growth pulling us through spending into a better economy, but where he's failing is that he is also advocating anti-growth policies. You cannot grow through spending with policies that hinder growth.
I see. So Pres. Reagan was a big borrow and spend president only because he was duped.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Guys, stop feeding that anti-Reagan / anti-Bush troll.

Don't you notice that he's just baiting me & you ? I've long had him on ignore, you should do the same.

-t
You only have me ignore because you hate seeing yourself losing arguments over and over again.

That's why your handle 'turtle' fits so well. You are just hiding in your shell.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 09:03 PM
 

I get it.

BUY GOLD AND SILVER.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2012, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Guys, stop feeding that anti-Reagan / anti-Bush troll.

Don't you notice that he's just baiting me & you ? I've long had him on ignore, you should do the same.
A real good point. I felt dirty even referring to an argument made by the troll.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 05:36 PM
 
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 05:40 PM
 
Utter bullshit and propaganda.

How does it matter that TARP "made" a few pennies, when the same government has been running Trillion $ deficits for the last 3 years.

-t
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 04:11 PM
 
The folly of "austerity" during an economic downturn brought to you by that bastion of leftist ideology The Wall Street Journal .....



One reason the unemployment rate may have remained persistently high: The sharp cuts in state and local government spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and the layoffs those cuts wrought.

The Labor Department’s establishment survey of employers — the jobs count that it bases its payroll figures on — shows that the government has been steadily shedding workers since the crisis struck, with 586,000 fewer jobs than in December 2008. Friday’s employment report showed the cuts continued in April, with 15,000 government jobs lost.

But the survey of households that the unemployment rate is based on suggests the government job cuts have been much, much worse.

In April the household survey showed that that there were 442,000 fewer people working in government than in March. The household survey has a much smaller sample size than the establishment survey, and so is prone to volatility, but the magnitude of the drop is striking: It marks the largest decline on both an absolute and a percentage basis on record going back to 1948. Moreover, the household survey has consistently showed bigger drops in government employment than the establishment survey has.

The unemployment rate would be far lower if it hadn’t been for those cuts: If there were as many people working in government as there were in December 2008, the unemployment rate in April would have been 7.1%, not 8.1%.
Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

OAW
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The POTUS is NOT elected to do nothing.
Apparently that's Congress' job.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The folly of "austerity" during an economic downturn brought to you by that bastion of leftist ideology The Wall Street Journal .....

Unemployment Rate Without Government Cuts: 7.1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Even the WSJ writes bullshit now and then.

This whole notion of "negative impact" from government austerity is a fig leaf.

What would unemployment be w/o all the non-value add government jobs that are funded by the $1.3T deficit ?
Exactly, MUCH higher. All those job are effectively funded by debt, anyways.

We could have 0% unemployment if we just decided to run a $5T deficit and "pay off" all those unemployable people.

-t
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,