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.
Except it's nothing like that. How you understood what was said is wrong, so your analogy is wrong. 6M created is 6M created. If he presented in as net growth, you might have a case, but he didn't.
And guess what... even if your facts were right, my graph covers net job growth, so your point about Obama using gross numbers still doesn't work as an analogy.
The analogy is exactly correct. I comapared one instance of using only part of the story to claim credit that isn't due to another instance of using only part of the story to claim credit that isn't due.
I could also point to Obama's claim that oil drilling is up. Yes, oil drilling is up on private lands where he had no control. On the federal lands where he did have control, however, drilling permits are down. He was, in fact, sued and lost over refusing to issue permits. Another example of the same thing I'm talking about - ommitting pertinent information so as to leave a misleading impression. Intellectual dishonesty. He implied drilling was up because of him, but it's actually up despite him.
What you're doing is simply plausible deniability by pointing out the technical accuracy of the statements. But I never said that Obama lied. I said he was intellectually dishonest. Intellectual dishonesty and actual dishonesty are two different things.
It worked so well from 1929-1945 that historians call that period the Great Depression. What a lovely time it was. All that government taxing and spending was just peachy.
In 1929 we were living in a rightwinger wet dream as far as fiscal and monetary policy went. We were on a gold standard, the top rates on regular income and capital gains were 24% and 12.5% respectively and there was almost no social safety net.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 02-21-2013 at 10:22 PM..
While I don't think this is the new normal ;growth from defcit reductio will limit governamt growth in the future. Just the reduction i eassy credit means less consumer spending overall.Alos we will see mnay cutsin government spending when the defeicit is finally started being paid for to sustainable levels. The main thing I see coming is lower wage jobs will be cut by employers to lower overall healthcare expenses. it wil be hard to justify 13K plus more which is figure for average cowst of heathcare contribtuion by employer for mnay lower level jobs. Computerization;contracted labor and automation will be more used in many non-esentail jobs ;where it can be done.
Actually if nothing was done in 2009 we would be currently in the second Great Depression. So again, I agree if taxes for the wealthy ever hit 73% and we are faced with a recession, I say we cut them down to 25%. Also, when you cut taxes, it is usually a smart idea to cut spending too.....if you remember, Bush cut taxes and then increased spending by engaging in two wars, not a smart move at all.
I would disagree. In a recession you need to spend and cut taxes in such a way that the people getting the tax cut will spend more. You cannot worry about deficits, because the longer the recession the more the lost growth and contraction will eat you alive on that front any way. As long as you don't have inflation and borrowing costs are near zero you need to spend aggressively to get out of recession. The real and much more difficult trick which Clinton had down and W totally blew is having the discipline to raise taxes and cut spending in periods of robust growth so as to save up and slow speculation.
The Euro is a fairly strong currency and Germany wanted it that way. Germany has always wanted a strong currency. Furthermore if they had control of their own currency they could do open market operations to reduce the value of it if they wanted to, which I doubt they would want to do and cannot do with the Euro anyway. You see having an artificially low currency is very easy to do.
All you have to do is print money, exchange it for foreign currency (usually dollars) and park said foreign currency in foreign currency denominated assets held by your central bank. Japan has been doing this for decades. For Germany the big advantage of the Euro is that is a large and widely circulated currency, much more then the Mark could ever be and while the does help them, if that were the only thing the US would be in the same boat since the US dollar is an even more widely circulated currency.
This article explains my point in more depth than I can.
I would disagree. In a recession you need to spend and cut taxes in such a way that the people getting the tax cut will spend more. You cannot worry about deficits, because the longer the recession the more the lost growth and contraction will eat you alive on that front any way. As long as you don't have inflation and borrowing costs are near zero you need to spend aggressively to get out of recession. The real and much more difficult trick which Clinton had down and W totally blew is having the discipline to raise taxes and cut spending in periods of robust growth so as to save up and slow speculation.
Not only Clinton, but Bush 1, Reagan, and Kennedy also raised taxes after cutting them.
Are many Eurozone countries hurt by having a strong Euro? Yes. With that said if they all agreed they could devalue the Euro rather easily. As I said it is quite easy to devalue your currency, it was the way the Italians and Greeks managed their economies before the Euro, however, Germany is against this and will not let it happen. Germany has been an economic power house since before the Euro and has always done it with a strong currency or "strong gilt" as one of my college econ professors used to say. The fact is unions, minimum wage, and a social safety net have little impact on a country's ability to export and do manufacturing.
Not only Clinton, but Bush 1, Reagan, and Kennedy also raised taxes after cutting them.
And that is why with the exception of Reagan who never reduced spending all three of those presidents were able to steer the nation in the right direction in terms of debt as a % of GDP.
Are many Eurozone countries hurt by having a strong Euro. With that said if they all agreed they could devalue the Euro rather easily. As I said it is quite easy to devalue your currency, it was the way the Italians and Greeks managed their economies before the Euro, however, Germany is against this and will not let it happen.
I'm not sure, there was talk some time ago about splitting the Eurozone into a N. and S. and some talk about separating Germany. From my understanding Germany benefits by staying in the EU from an artificially low currency relative to the other countries and a lower tax burden per capita than they would otherwise have. I really haven't kept up with Euro news though. One point I do remember is that some of the suffering countries needed to devalue, but it was the one thing they had no ability to do.
I'm not sure, there was talk some time ago about splitting the Eurozone into a N. and S. and some talk about separating Germany. From my understanding Germany benefits by staying in the EU from an artificially low currency relative to the other countries and a lower tax burden per capita than they would otherwise have. I really haven't kept up with Euro news though. One point I do remember is that some of the suffering countries needed to devalue, but it was the one thing they had no ability to do.
For the 3rd time artificially low currencies are really easy to achieve if you have total control of your monetary policy. Germany does not need to the Euro to make an artificially low currency to do what they do since they are running the same manufacturing/export engine they had with the Deutchmark, and not that they would want to anyway. Part of the issue with the Euro is that it puts southern European countries in a possition where their currency is too strong for them to pay their debts, and they need bailouts, these bailouts come with austerity conditions that further contract their economies and again make it impossible to pay their debts. That and Northern Countries becoming frustrated with bailouts are what make the Euro not feasible in the long run without Europe moving towards a more unified federal system like the US.
Southern countries do need to devalue because of the above mentioned hamster wheel they are on but cannot because they do not control their own monetary policy.
1. you dont know what a recession is because we have not been in one since 2009.
2. The First year of Bush's presidency involved a recession.
3. GDP is currently growing at the same rate it was in 2007.
Sorry, I don't agree with the official definition of a recession. For most of the country, we are only barely better off now than we were when we were still technically in a recession, and that was almost four years ago. Whether the National Bureau of Economic Research admits it or not, this is still a very real recession for much of the country.
Secondly, the early 2000s recession was very mild and mostly affected the tech sector. Many articles say it wouldn't have technically been a recession had it not been for 9/11 and it's aftermath. Plus, it officially started in March 2001 but the markets had been plummeting since early in 2000. Nobody blamed Clinton for it though like they blame Bush for the current mess. Blame nobody other than our liberal-biased media for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The markets have not gone from 8000 to 14,000 because of fundamental improvements in the economy.
Actually bottom was just above 6,000 in March 2009. My opinion doesn't mean squat, but if the Dow was based on fundamentals I think we would probably still be under 10,000.
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.
