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 10-21-2009, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,548,114 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by compJockey View Post
Its time to let go of that talking point.
Nobody had it right.
The "lunatics on the fringe" did. But no one listened to them because they were "delusional".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2009, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,975,014 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Nobody thought the recession would be as deep as it was.

The CBO thought unemployment would not top 8.3% as of January 2009.

Its time to let go of that talking point.
Nobody had it right.
Wrong, as usual.

The CBO said the recession would end by late 2009/early 2010 WITHOUT any intervention from government (stimulus).

They also said the stimulus would be harmful over the long haul.

"CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul" - Rich Lowry - The Corner on National Review Online

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9..._Testimony.pdf

Quote:
CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009,
making it the longest recession since World War II. This recession, however, may not result in the highest unemployment
rate. That rate, in CBO’s forecast, rises to 9.2 percent by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the end of 2006) but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen near the end of the 1981–1982 recession.
Quote:
The timeliness of fiscal stimulus is critical. Ideally, the
economic effects of the stimulus should match the
period of economic weakness.
Page 32 - obama didn't listen.

Last edited by sanrene; 10-21-2009 at 08:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 08:56 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,491,822 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Do you really believe the hyperbole that to get out of massive debt, you must spend, spend, spend? Do you know of any family in debt that has applied that strategy? Any business? Any state? Any time at all where that has worked?
Take a public finance course sometime. Anything...something off the back of a matchbook cover. You're so far out of the loop, anything would be of value to you at this point.

Oh, and by the way...

Components of GDP:
Personal Consumption Expenditures (in the tank)
Gross Private Domestic Investment (in the tank)
Net Exports (not helping)
Government Consumption and Investment (Hint, hint, hint)
That's all...there isn't anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 08:58 PM
 
2,661 posts, read 2,905,508 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Wrong, as usual.

The CBO said the recession would end by late 2009/early 2010 WITHOUT any intervention from government (stimulus).

They also said the stimulus would be harmful over the long haul.

"CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul" - Rich Lowry - The Corner on National Review Online
Your link says:
Quote:
CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.
But your neat little propaganda piece doesn't list the expected increase in comparison.

The expected increase is up to 4.1% in 2009
up to 3.6% in 2010
up to 1.2% in 2011

As of February 4th CBO director's blog.

Which is bigger.

a possible decrease of up to 0.3%

or

an increase of up to 4.1%, and 3.6% and 1.2%

And since you appear to be arguing (or simply uninformed) that the up to 0.3% decrease is more significant than increases of 4.1, 3.6 and 1.2 I have to wonder at which point in elementary math did you stop paying attention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 09:04 PM
 
2,661 posts, read 2,905,508 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
The "lunatics on the fringe" did. But no one listened to them because they were "delusional".
I would love to see a link along those lines.

Are you talking about Jim Kramer?
Which conservative fringe economist thought unemployment would approach 10% as of January 2009?

Because Joe the Plumber claiming "things are gonna be bad pa, real bad" doesn't carry any weight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 09:07 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,491,822 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Mmmm we are talking cost containment in healthcare, every provider is taking a hit yet they wanted to keep the doctors whole. Now why would they want to do that? LOL.
So far from reality. The annual override is the equivalent of the annual AMT patch. An affect of legacy legislation that no one actually wants to see actualized. The Dems in this case did not just let it go, they pushed it over the edge. How could that have happened...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,548,114 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by compJockey View Post
I would love to see a link along those lines.

Are you talking about Jim Kramer?
Which conservative fringe economist thought unemployment would approach 10% as of January 2009?

Because Joe the Plumber claiming "things are gonna be bad pa, real bad" doesn't carry any weight.
Where in my post did I say 10% ?
Where in my post did I say "conservative fringe economist" ?

That's what people who go against the grain are called by the public .."lunatics" or "delusional". By fringe I did not imply politics.

Do your own research. Any name I give you will be shot down immediately so I won't even bother. Those guys predicted this long before Obama's famous "won't go above 8%" chart came out.

Cramer is an idiot and only fools listen to him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 09:15 PM
 
2,661 posts, read 2,905,508 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Where in my post did I say 10% ?
Where in my post did I say "conservative fringe economist" ?
Your claim was that "Lunatics on the fringe" knew that the recession would be as bad as it got (we are real close to 10% UE, hence approach 10%).

And I thought it was mean that you used the term "lunatics", so I changed it to "conservatives". Sorry for the confusion.

Quote:
Do your own research. Any name I give you will be shot down immediately so I won't even bother. Those guys predicted this long before Obama's famous "won't go above 8%" chart came out.

Cramer is an idiot and only fools listen to him.
I don't want to shoot it down, I want to know if your claim has any merit.
Who is "those guys"?

Searching through results for "fringe lunatic predicts doom" is not going to happen, lol.

Who are the mystery men who knew the recession's depths 6 months in advance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 09:16 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,491,822 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Here ya go..Biden admits that "EVERYONE guessed wrong" so that lets them off the hook for the out of whack unemployment estimations. I mean..it was "everyone" so how was the WH to know better ?
Biden-speak for back in January everyone was using the same best available data from November 2008, so yeah, everybody's projections looked low by comparison to what the actual data looked like months later. Doesn't matter who you pick...CEA, CBO, OMB, the Fed, the Blue Chip boys...the same effect is visible in everyone's projections.

Your probelm is that you can't manage to take a projection as a projection and use it for what it's designed for. You insist that it must be a prediction and so lead youself to all sorts of unwarranted conclusions. Well, perhaps YOU don't do that. More likely that you actually let some right-wing propagandist do it for you. Nice work...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Keonsha, Wisconsin
2,479 posts, read 3,237,341 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
I guess if nancy says it, you believe it?

Sure looks like more stimulus to one who is objective.

Actually, that's kind of hilarious. Tax cuts are no longer stimulative to the Left.

That's the very definition of a tax cut.

I think we get it - nothing about obama and his ruinous agenda is news to you.
Well, that's two democrats you hate and do not believe. President Obama, and Nancy Pelosi. Do you dislike all democrats, or just those two?

A tax cut is stimulus? Hmmm, I thought a tax cut was a tax cut, or a break for businesses. You are sooooo smart, I'll bet your board at your office has 9 million stars on it!
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:51 AM.

© 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