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.
Oh, let's remember ... too ... that President Obama is Worldwide President, regning over all nations and responsible for their economic issues ... which affect our economy every day and in every way. Just tell me when to pass-out the tin foil hats.
So thats the new excuse.. Obama isnt boss of the world.. Hey gomexico, if we're now discussing the worlds economic effects upon our economy, wouldnt this mean that the stimulus did SQUAT because $800B, (of which only $500B was cash) is NOTHING in a worldwide economy.
You are now arguing that his stimulus bill was designed to fail, and for once I agree with you..
One of the great lies of the dems and the left is that they or obama "inherited" anything. They CREATED the problem; obama was a senator who was part of the problem. In other words, he helped create the problem he whines about inheriting.
You can trace the start of our troubles to the dems taking over the congress in the 2006 election.
But we all know that it started even before then, with the many bad pieces of legislation Clinton signed into law, during his lame duck years, and allowing F&F to destroy the home mortgage market.
And that would be yet another dishonest statement. Or, at least, a misinformed one. Only if you count government jobs. Private sector jobs are finally above Jan 2009 level. And it had to take this long after the disastrous loss of jobs. How many years do you think it had taken to add 6.5 million jobs in the private sector to achieve the last peak? (Hint: 46 months)
So thats the new excuse.. Obama isnt boss of the world.. Hey gomexico, if we're now discussing the worlds economic effects upon our economy, wouldnt this mean that the stimulus did SQUAT because $800B, (of which only $500B was cash) is NOTHING in a worldwide economy.
You are now arguing that his stimulus bill was designed to fail, and for once I agree with you..
Maybe we need to remind the libs of their over-the-top rhetoric and hype of Obama from 2007-2009. I could dig up some of the many angelic halo-photos of Obama, news talk show leg thrills, and references of Obama to god or the Messiah.
Thats not the discussion because the discussion is you giving Obama credit for job creations, even though EVERY SINGLE recession that happens.
Well, if you don't want to discuss recovery during previous recessions, you clearly aren't into analyzing trends. And consequently, you shouldn't make a statement with any authority on what is essentially based on trend.
Quote:
Bushs tax cuts were passed in order to reduce the period of time we were in a recession, which is why they resulted in more federal revenues. The ending of the recession is what created the jobs.
You can't teach an old dog... well, I would never agree with you on the idiocy you maintain (or are obligated to) on federal revenues. After all, you don't like trend analysis. You just called it "not the discussion".
But what you're saying now is that recovery from 2001 recession required not one but TWO stimulus programs. That takes care of your argument that economies recover anyway after recession, and do so automatically. But then, in your defense, you never care for trend analysis so the best you have is: blanket statements. Yet, somehow, you also managed to sneak in... but those two tax cuts reduced the recovery time. Or, did they? I guess the first one failed, so there was a need for second? Classic case of non-sense.
Quote:
Seriously, have you even attended school? Never heard of economic business cycles? For being an expert, you dont know very much.
I know enough about you. Does that count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So thats the new excuse.. Obama isnt boss of the world..
I guess in those schools you went to, they work on global economies, each working in complete isolation. I'm sure there are schools that do that. The question is, have those schools now been operating via TV sets and radio, schooling kids and adults alike on economics.
06-06-2012, 09:28 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Looks like we've got more of the standard GOP rhetoric - lie about what was actually said, ignore the severity of the recession, blame the president for all bad things that ever happen, and deny all credit for good things that happens.
The simple fact is that few people, including those who follow what's going on, really understood just how close we were to complete financial ruin. Bush and lots of people in congress (most Democrats and a lot of Republicans) deserve a good deal of credit for recognizing just how bad things really were and acting to prevent a complete meltdown.
It was an extraordinarily nasty time with a lot of uncertainty, as the Obama administration acknowledged before it ever took office and when it was talking about the need for a stimulus program.
Quote:
Thats not the discussion because the discussion is you giving Obama credit for job creations, even though EVERY SINGLE recession that happens.
So your approach is to simply avoid any discussion of what unemployment and recovery would have looked like had the stimulus not been passed. And, you're doing this to support the baseless (and clearly wrong to anyone who is even casually observing reality) assertion that the stimulus failed.
Last edited by i7pXFLbhE3gq; 06-06-2012 at 09:36 AM..
Well, if you don't want to discuss recovery during previous recessions, you clearly aren't into analyzing trends. And consequently, you shouldn't make a statement with any authority on what is essentially based on trend.
Actually you are the one who dont want to discuss it because it disputes your blah blah blah, obama create jobs bs.. Hey einstein, AFTER EVERY RECESSION YOU GET JOBS. So since you are crediting Obama with something thats been happening forever, its up to YOU to now say why this time is "special:..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You can't teach an old dog... well, I would never agree with you on the idiocy you maintain (or are obligated to) on federal revenues. After all, you don't like trend analysis. You just called it "not the discussion".
But what you're saying now is that recovery from 2001 recession required not one but TWO stimulus programs. That takes care of your argument that economies recover anyway after recession, and do so automatically. But then, in your defense, you never care for trend analysis so the best you have is: blanket statements. Yet, somehow, you also managed to sneak in... but those two tax cuts reduced the recovery time. Or, did they? I guess the first one failed, so there was a need for second? Classic case of non-sense.
yes, the 2001 recession required two of them.. the 2001 one was designed to boost the economy, which worked,
The 2003 one was designed to boost employment, which also worked
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I know enough about you. Does that count?
Knowing enough about me doesnt make you educated on the economy, obvious from your postings
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I guess in those schools you went to, they work on global economies, each working in complete isolation. I'm sure there are schools that do that. The question is, have those schools now been operating via TV sets and radio, schooling kids and adults alike on economics.
Actually economic business cycles happen not only on a micro economics scale, but also a macro one.
But thanks for now telling us you have absolutely no schooling on economics, and only pretend you do..
Thats not the discussion because the discussion is you giving Obama credit for job creations, even though EVERY SINGLE recession that happens.
When was the last time it happened without any government intervention? That becomes the discussion when you make unsubstantiated remarks like this and then refuse to engage in trend analysis on the very argument you make. Calling this pathetic would be an understatement.
Quote:
Bushs tax cuts were passed in order to reduce the period of time we were in a recession...
And that doesn't apply to Obama's stimulus. Why?
Quote:
which is why they resulted in more federal revenues.
Is this the discussion? We've been there, and you've refused to learn EVERY TIME. But, feel free to keep parroting this to no end. It has been your refuge.
Quote:
The ending of the recession is what created the jobs.
When was that?
Quote:
Seriously, have you even attended school? Never heard of economic business cycles? For being an expert, you dont know very much.
Definitely not the kind you've been schooled at. But then, I don't think schools ought to be blamed for ignorance that is evident around here. I find it hard to blame schools (unless it is "homeschooling" done over TV and/or radio, and like) for people to assume world economies functioning in complete isolation, that European markets, or China, or Japan have absolutely no effect anywhere else. So, I can only question you. Is that okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
yes, the 2001 recession required two of them.. the 2001 one was designed to boost the economy, which worked
When? Do you have the same graph extended to include 2008-2009 recession?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The 2003 one was designed to boost employment, which also worked
How come the 2001 stimulus didn't achieve that? Don't you expect 2009 stimulus to do it all?
When was the last time it happened without any government intervention? That becomes the discussion when you make unsubstantiated remarks like this and then refuse to engage in trend analysis on the very argument you make. Calling this pathetic would be an understatement.
Wrong question, when was the last time TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE ECONOMY, actually stimulated it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And that doesn't apply to Obama's stimulus. Why?
Because when you take $800B out of the economy in order to pump it back in, (or more precisely the $500B which was the "spendng part", you end up with ZERO NET STIMULATIONS..
$500B out of the economy, + $500B into the economy = ZERO
Where do you think they got the money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Is this the discussion? We've been there, and you've refused to learn EVERY TIME. But, feel free to keep parroting this to no end. It has been your refuge.
You dont think more people working = more tax revenues? enough said!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
When was that?
I gave you a chart, you cant read it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Definitely not the kind you've been schooled at. But then, I don't think schools ought to be blamed for ignorance that is evident around here. I find it hard to blame schools (unless it is "homeschooling" done over TV and/or radio, and like) for people to assume world economies functioning in complete isolation, that European markets, or China, or Japan have absolutely no effect anywhere else. So, I can only question you. Is that okay?
So now you're back to blaming world wide economies for what we're seeing now. Tell me why this reason is isolated to Obama, and why other presidents didnt have to face the same issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
When?
I gave you the chart..
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.
