The failed argument of relativity (illegal, weapons, deport, illegals)
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.
Yet another internet one-man-band operation with no credentials as a reliable source.
The dot-com bubble is largely an urban legend that grew out of the rigged IPO scandals that were the first dividend of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Actual fallout in the tech sector had occurred in 1997-98 when hundreds of independents went belly-up as the brick-and-mortar boys started flexing their muscle by pushing the in-house technology that had proven so successful for them in B2B applications out into retail. Technology has otherwise continued its productivity-improving march unabated through today.
Corporate scandals briefly damaged consumer and investor confidence, but the actual economic damage was not sufficient to have brought about a recession.
Deflation didn't occur then. It is occurring in a so far relatively gentle sense now. The government was not "hoarding" money in any sense of the term.
Y2K came and went. It drew resources away from other demands and then returned them.
9/11 resulted in the destruction of four buildings in one corner of one city. The economic damage had been absorbed by the end of the year except for slumps in short- and medium-distance business travel and in the tourism industry that took up to a year to recover from. The 2001 recession was already six months old when the attacks occurred.
It was good enough for a Harvard report. That's a pretty partisan analysis.
According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.
Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars.
Insurance. The losses from the terrorist attacks for the insurance industry (including reinsurance) are estimated at between $30 and $58 billion with the main uncertainty concerning liability insurance. By comparison the losses associated with Hurricane Andrew's 1992 damage in Florida came to around $21 billion. Even if the final cost is close to the lower estimate, insured losses in 2001 are likely to have been the highest ever.
Following the attacks, most primary insurers have increased their premiums and curtailed or dropped altogether coverage for terrorism-related risk. The increases in insurance premiums have adversely affected several key industries. The strongest impact has been on aviation, but other sectors, including transportation, construction, and tourism and energy generation have also been affected. Overall it is estimated that commercial property and liability insurance rates have been raised by 30 percent on average.
Airlines. The United States' airline industry was already in a weak financial position before the attacks with rising debt ratios and falling returns on investment. Even with cutbacks in service of the order of 20 percent and significant government support, airline passenger traffic has apparently remained below normal, 100,000 layoffs have been announced and employment in October and November fell by 81,000 (almost 8 percent). Equity valuations compared to the overall market illustrate these difficulties. The U.S. airline sector has lost around 20 percent of its relative value since September 10.
Tourism and Other Service Industries. Other industries have also been badly affected, such as hotels, tourism, automobile rentals, travel agents, and civilian aircraft manufactures. For example, hotels have reported higher vacancy rates and employment in the sector as a whole fell by 58,000 (about 3 percent) in October and November. Relative equity values for hotels and leisure facilities are off by around 15 percent.
Shipping. Shipping is an area where it is particularly hard to assess the impact of the terrorist attacks. The main problem is one of defining a credible counterfactual—i.e., what would the state of affairs been in the absence of 9/11? For example, in spite of new security requirements, six months following the attacks most available indices showed little evidence of an increase in shipping costs. Some rates had even declined. Maritime shipping rates increased by 5 to 10 percent on average in the two weeks following the attack, but that rise was soon reversed. Airfreight rates, on the other hand were bout 10 percent higher in late 2001 than before the attacks. Given the sharp deceleration of aggregate demand beginning in 2000 and the drop in fuel costs following the attacks, a steeper decline in freight costs should have occurred. The relative stability of freight rates, despite lower fuel costs and under-utilized shipping capacity would tend to suggest that underlying transportation costs may have increased as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
Increases in security and military spending. The President has requested a significant increase in security-related programs in the context of the budget for FY2003. Additional spending of $48 billion was proposed for national defense (an increase of 14 percent from the previous year). In addition the President asked Congress for an appropriation of $38 billion for homeland security, compared to $20 billion spent in 2001. This seeks to improve the preparedness of first responders (fireman, police, and rescue workers), enhance defenses against biological attacks, secure borders and improve information sharing and includes $8 billion for domestic defense spending.
Long Term Impacts:
Higher operating costs. Businesses may experience higher operating costs owing to increased spending on security, higher insurance premiums and longer wait times for activities.
Higher levels of inventories. Business may be required to hold larger inventories than previously, owing in part to less reliable air and rail transportation. There is anecdotal evidence from the auto industry that production was interrupted because components were not immediately available from suppliers after the September 11 attacks, owing to delays in shipments crossing the U.S.-Canada border.
Higher risk premium. As a result of the attack, lenders' appetite for risk may decline, leading to higher risk premiums that may be passed on to businesses in the form of higher interest rates and lower equity prices, with an adverse effect on business investment, and a smaller capital stock.
Shift of resources away from the civilian labor force toward the military. More resources may be diverted toward the military for use in the containment of terrorism. In addition, research and development (R&D) resources may be shifted way from productive activities towards the development of new devices to thwart terrorism (although such devices may have beneficial spillover effects elsewhere).
Shift away from globalization. The attack may have effects on firms' investment decisions—in particular whether to invest domestically or abroad, in part because of potential disruption of cross-border flows of goods and assets. Costs for such transactions may rise owing to closer inspection of transactions and higher insurance premiums
It would be nearly impossible to put an actual number on the losses to businesses and our economy. To say we got over it before the end of the year makes it seem like you know something everyone in the rest of the US doesn't. That does not take away from the housing bubble bust in any way.
The nation has committed enormous resources to national security and to
countering terrorism. Between fiscal year 2001, the last budget adopted before 9/11,and the present fiscal year 2004, total federal spending on defense (including expenditures on both Iraq and Afghanistan), homeland security, and international affairs rose more than 50 percent, from $354 billion to about $547 billion.The United States has not experienced such a rapid surge in national security spending since the Korean War.
The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the
terrorists’ costs of millions.”
Visa Backlog Costs U.S. Exporters More Than $30 Billion Since 2002,New Study Finds,
The international environment for Bin Ladin’s efforts was ideal. Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation.This assistance was funneled through Pakistan:the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter- Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.
1. Claiming that he increased a deficit of $1.3 trillion to $9.5 trillion.
2. Claiming that he said current deficits were okay because he's going to save some money later.
Alright, you know what, I am pretty new to this forum, but I can already see that you are one of those types of people that it is impossible to have a logical debate with.
Lying is not logic. Misrepresentation is not logic. If you sought to have a logical debate in this thread, you got off to a very bad start. Maybe think your statements through a little better next time.
1. Claiming that he increased a deficit of $1.3 trillion to $9.5 trillion.
First, I never claimed that he increased the deficit $1.3 trillion. In my OP I stated that he inherited it. Which he did.
Under his watch, on the projected 10 year budget, he will increase our deficit 9 trillion. 7 trillion from the budget and 2.5 trillion from the stimulas. That is 9 trillion. Where is the lie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
2. Claiming that he said current deficits were okay because he's going to save some money later.
Never said that either. What I did say was that when Obama was asked about the massive spending, his response did not revolve around ANYTHING except what he inherited and what savings he made (which he didn't make) with his new budget.
Lying is not logic. Misrepresentation is not logic. If you sought to have a logical debate in this thread, you got off to a very bad start. Maybe think your statements through a little better next time.
Thus far, you have not proven that I have misrepresented or lied in the slightest. You have made the accusation, but that is all.
Regardless, my position on your debating proves true. Rather than discuss a topic, and defend Obama, you would rather turn the conversation to me, how I presented the facts, if I made any mistakes, and tried to convince me of what side of the polictical spectrum I land on.
You might find this gratifying and it may cause you a feeling of successful debate, but sadly, its a red herring. This conversation isn't about me, or what I said, its about President Obama, the misrepresentations that he made, and the avoidance of the question posed by answering with some relative discussion while avoiding the real question.
Here is a small synopsis of your focus and snide comments in this thread"
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“No real surprise there”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“The right-wing seems to feel somehow incomplete if it isn't fabricating something”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“Either one is being pretty stupid”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“Which will not matter to the right-wingers one whit”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“For the apparently hard of hearing”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“You earn every snide remark that comes your way”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“You have and make no actual case”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“You have made dishonesty the topic”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“When are right-wingers going to drop that empty revisionist rhetoric”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“This is a joke. You've done nothing but post partisan spin”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“You are only earning the wages of sin”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“You are either more dense than I am willing to accuse you of being, or you are simply following along a predictable partisan path of false criticism for the sake of criticism”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“Yet it all seems to have been beyond your grasp”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“Even the tattered remnants of the bozo Republican Party”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“Not so much appreciation for or dedication to the reality of our situation there”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“A product of your increasing desperation, I would suspect”
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
“How low can you go?”
If you wish to debate with me in the future, I suggest that you do so on the topic up for discussion, rather than about me. I won't buy into the petiness of juvinile debate and immature reactions.
I think you are able to discuss topics logically if you wanted to, but your blatent distaste, even hate, for conservatives and republicans earns you little recognition in my eyes.
It was good enough for a Harvard report. That's a pretty partisan analysis.
Just pointing out that all internet sites are not created equal. Some solo-flying whackjob can be found to support almost any premise. The rationale offered by the one you linked to was questionable on all counts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
According to the chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.
Yeah, that's what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Though we never had an actual recession in 2003 you can clearly see the economic downturn.
And in 2006. But GDP is not the actual marker for dating a recession as the rest of the page that you pulled up from NBER makes quite clear.
A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades.
GDP and the economy as a whole regularly experience wobbles that do not measure up to the sort of broad, national, persisting declines in activity that are the standard for defining a recession.
It would be nearly impossible to put an actual number on the losses to businesses and our economy. To say we got over it before the end of the year makes it seem like you know something everyone in the rest of the US doesn't. That does not take away from the housing bubble bust in any way.
Like all major disasters, natural or manmade, the terrorist attacks of September 11 resulted in a tragic loss of life and destruction of property, as well as short-term disruption of economic activity. In addition, because of the size and premeditated nature of the attack, there are likely to be more lasting effects in some industries and segments of the U.S. economy.
No one denies the tragic nature of the events nor that there were short-term economic impacts. Theories of 9/11 having been some sort of economic cataclysm are however all overblown. It was a small scale event except in psychological terms. Your links are full of "may be", "may experience", and "may decline". Almost anything may happen, particularly when foreseen from the immediate aftermath of a shocking event. From that sort of standpoint, if you can't rule it out, it's in. Pretty unrealistic. In hindsight, 9/11 was a blip of very unfortunate origin, but still just a blip. There have been many other blips in the past and there will be more of them in the future.
The nation has committed enormous resources to national security and to countering terrorism. Between fiscal year 2001, the last budget adopted before 9/11,and the present fiscal year 2004, total federal spending on defense (including expenditures on both Iraq and Afghanistan), homeland security, and international affairs rose more than 50 percent, from $354 billion to about $547 billion.The United States has not experienced such a rapid surge in national security spending since the Korean War. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the
terrorists’ costs of millions.
Yeah, invading and occupying far away foreign countries can be an expensive proposition, particularly it turns out if you do it for no actual reason and with no actual plan. The small percentage of that total increase actually devoted to improvements in domestic security and international affairs was likely money well spent. The rest of it, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Visa Backlog Costs U.S. Exporters More Than $30 Billion Since 2002,New Study Finds,
Problems at INS/ICE certainly predated 9/11, and haven't exactly been resolved since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
The international environment for Bin Ladin’s efforts was ideal. Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation.This assistance was funneled through Pakistan:the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter- Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.
Interesting in some other context perhaps, but not relevant to this one.
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.
