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.
remember that? When McCain made fun of Clinton for saying Bin Laden was a threat?
Wait.. Stop your postings.
You claimed Congress was to blame for a recession when Clinton was president, that would also mean that Congress is to blame for the current one, not Bush.. You cant have it both ways..
p.s. a blog isnt news, its an opinion.. try to find news..
You claimed Congress was to blame for a recession when Clinton was president, that would also mean that Congress is to blame for the current one, not Bush.. You cant have it both ways..
p.s. a blog isnt news, its an opinion.. try to find news..
the 'blog' is info from this CNN - President wants Senate to hurry with new laws - July 30, 1996 (http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ - broken link)
cnn Im sure is news.
Current one? No Republican Congress + Bush on first round are to blame when they ran off to war and lowered the Interest rate to falsely stimulate the economy with self created housing bubble.. to cover-up the economic damage, layoffs and inflation the war caused.
Nope.. And the scary part, your a teacher.... Now I know why children grow up stupid...
You know, it's pretty amazing to me that given that a) the President submits budget proposals, and b) the President has the authority to veto budgets and other spending items, and c) people keep talking about Obama's plan to raise taxes and spend money and how much Obama and McCain were planning on spending in their plans
that you, as educated as you clearly must be to so attack me and what I do for work, would think the President has nothing to do with either the Federal Deficit or the National Debt.
Of course, this explains to me why you spend so much time correcting all your fellow illiberal posters when they talk about how Obama is going to ruin the economy, how Obama is going to drive businesses away with his tax schemes, and other bits of hyperbole.
Wait... what's that?
*SHOCK!*
I'm being told you don't do that.
Oh, how can that be? A person as erudite and principled as you are would surely not let a little thing like partisanship prevent your disabusing everybody of these gross principles of governance that a teacher ought to know - regardless of subject matter or age group.
Well, then, let me put it to you quite simply:
1) The President, through his control of the Executive Branch, has the power to veto spending bills. This can have an impact on both deficit and debt.
2) The President, through his control of the Executive Branch, has the ability to spend less money than has been allocated for many specific enterprises. This can have an impact on both deficit and debt.
3) The President, through Executive Orders, has the ability to enable expenditures or to create revenue. This can have an impact on both deficit and debt.
4) The President, even when not exercising veto power, can use considerable influence to either promote particular pieces of legislation or prevent packages from passing. Oddly enough, this can have an impact on both deficit and debt.
5) As has been demonstrated during the current term, the President has the ability to determine whether we are leaving troops in harms way or bringing them home, forcing the Senators and Representatives to either provide the money the President is requesting (and demanding) or be perceived as "not supporting the troops." And this, too, can have an impact on both deficit and debt.
So don't hand me your crap about the different branches of government and their roles. It's sophistry and occludes what really goes on.
First let me state that I mistakenly referred to Robert Rubin instead of Robert Reich...Reich was his labor secretary, and no I dont believe that a LABOR secretary has anything to do with the Federal deficit so lets not sit here and have you try to imply false conclusions to statements I never made...if we stick to the topic we will see that you are calling something a "conspiracy theory" just because YOU dont happen to know anything about it.
And please try to restrain yourself from running in circles with your hair on fire screaming "its a blog!" because that is not a valid retort in this case.
It's pretty ironic having you insist I should not point out that this is a blog while your comrade-in-arms is telling somebody else, down-thread, that his source doesn't count because it is a blog. However, I have no particular need to push that issue for you, not because it is or isn't relevant, but because I've got the article he's talking about. Now, so can you: Hard numbers: The economy is worse than you know - St. Petersburg Times
The decrease in sampling from 60,000 to 50,000 is a matter of fact. It is not in contention. The claim that the 10,000 dropped were mostly in the inner cities, on the other hand, is an unsupported bit. There is no source cited, nor does that information show up in the published methodologies of the time.
"the reduced sample (and a new adjustment formula) is believed to have reduced black unemployment estimates and eased worsening poverty figures."
If I'd used a phrase like that in a research paper in college, let alone grad school, my grade would have been marked down. There is a vague openendedness to it that makes it seem solid when there is no actual fact present.
***********
But, just accepting everything that Philip Greenspun, Kevin Phillips, and you say is true, there is one little fact that you are ignoring.
According to Phillips, the Bush administration made few changes to the formulae. That means that the comparisons between the two are using the same approach.
The Bush years, compared to the Clinton years, show a decline.
The Bush years, compared to the Clinton years, show a steep increase in the ration between National Debt and GDP, using identical formulae.
***********
Oh.
One other key part of the Obama aspect of this, from the original article, though Greenspun neglected to include it - one of the explicit sources that Phillips does include:
"In 2003, a University of Chicago economist named Austan Goolsbee (now a senior economic adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign) published an op-ed in the New York Times pointing out how the government had minimized the depth of the 2001-2002 U.S. recession, having "cooked the books" to misstate and minimize the unemployment numbers."
This suggests a man willing to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Knowing he is advising President-elect Obama makes me feel better about the whole thing.
It's pretty ironic having you insist I should not point out that this is a blog while your comrade-in-arms is telling somebody else, down-thread, that his source doesn't count because it is a blog. However, I have no particular need to push that issue for you, not because it is or isn't relevant, but because I've got the article he's talking about. Now, so can you: Hard numbers: The economy is worse than you know - St. Petersburg Times
The decrease in sampling from 60,000 to 50,000 is a matter of fact. It is not in contention. The claim that the 10,000 dropped were mostly in the inner cities, on the other hand, is an unsupported bit. There is no source cited, nor does that information show up in the published methodologies of the time.
"the reduced sample (and a new adjustment formula) is believed to have reduced black unemployment estimates and eased worsening poverty figures."
If I'd used a phrase like that in a research paper in college, let alone grad school, my grade would have been marked down. There is a vague openendedness to it that makes it seem solid when there is no actual fact present.
***********
But, just accepting everything that Philip Greenspun, Kevin Phillips, and you say is true, there is one little fact that you are ignoring.
According to Phillips, the Bush administration made few changes to the formulae. That means that the comparisons between the two are using the same approach.
The Bush years, compared to the Clinton years, show a decline.
The Bush years, compared to the Clinton years, show a steep increase in the ration between National Debt and GDP, using identical formulae.
***********
Oh.
One other key part of the Obama aspect of this, from the original article, though Greenspun neglected to include it - one of the explicit sources that Phillips does include:
"In 2003, a University of Chicago economist named Austan Goolsbee (now a senior economic adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign) published an op-ed in the New York Times pointing out how the government had minimized the depth of the 2001-2002 U.S. recession, having "cooked the books" to misstate and minimize the unemployment numbers."
This suggests a man willing to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Knowing he is advising President-elect Obama makes me feel better about the whole thing.
So you pointed out that both Dems and Republicans do the same thing...which I stated already. And sure, Austin will tell the emporer he has no clothes, while Reich wont...again it will probably lead to the same thing which is that our leaders will continue to manipulate numbers to their benefit...Im sure an Obama administration will also continue the whole Core vs. Headline inflation fallacy also.
Regardless of who is in office, my point is that the chart that was posted is hardly a reliable way to compare the difference between Dems and Republicans...mostly because there is none.
Clinton did have a budget surplus and The Clintons are running things behind the scenes. But Clinton took a hands off approach to the economy and Obama may veer into one economic landmine after another.
For those who believe that the President's "wish list" is not a major influence on the final budget and the President cannot influence the votes regarding the budget proposal and other items, and cannot therefore influence spending...
You are entitled to purchase your choice of the proverbial land in Florida, bridge in Brooklyn, or project in Nigeria.
*******
Why bother responding to a detailed post that illustrates why you are mistaken when you can just insult the poster instead.
Last edited by jps-teacher; 11-10-2008 at 06:07 PM..
Reason: orphaned
Bill Clinton was awesome. All future presidents should strive to be like him.
Saying that in public could get you fitted for a special white suit with straps on the sleeves. Amazing someone would think Clinton was anything above gutter slime....
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.
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.
