Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Sep '11 05:40 / 1 edit
    http://www.truthout.com/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142
  2. 01 Sep '11 06:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    http://www.truthout.com/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142
    Pay particular attention to this one.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/6088811219/lightbox/

    An extremely dramatic turnaround from job losses to job gains during the stimulus. And the effects were lasting. At the time the stimulus went away we had ventured into very small, positive jobs gains and we've remained flat at that level ever since.

    I think one more stimulus boost is just what we need. Nothing shrinks deficits like a good economy.
  3. 01 Sep '11 17:06
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Pay particular attention to this one.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/6088811219/lightbox/

    An extremely dramatic turnaround from job losses to job gains during the stimulus. And the effects were lasting. At the time the stimulus went away we had ventured into very small, positive jobs gains and we've remained flat at that level eve ...[text shortened]... more stimulus boost is just what we need. Nothing shrinks deficits like a good economy.
    I think the problem is that not enough voters really understood how badly the Republicans and bank fraudsters messed up the economy in 2007 to 2008 - and actually before that. It takes a little bit of understanding, and unfortunately most people just don't have the time to look at it and learn about it. And they have short memories.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Sep '11 18:36 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    http://www.truthout.com/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142
    That middle chart is a classic example of the type of BS you can use to spin numbers.

    As the chart shows, the Bush deficits were never higher than 400B and were under 200B after the DRA. The enormous deficit in 2008 was a result of TARP, passed by the Dem Congress; which was supposed to be a one time thing.

    The HUGE deficit of 2008 was not supposed to continue into the Obama administration. The very idea of a 1.6T deficit would have been considered mind boggling as late as 2007.

    Sorry, you don't get to use 2008 as your baseline. If you want to use a baseline, you need to use the average Bush deficit or you're being ridiculous and unfair.

    Also, the use of the projections through 2013 is nonsense. I want to see Obama cut the deficit in half by 2013 before I believe in that projection.

    All the same goes for chart 1.

    As for chart 3, yes, Obama took over in the midst of a terrible recession. We know that. The complaint against Obama is not that the economy hasn't recovered at all. It obviously has a little bit. It was going to do so no matter what. The economy is cyclical. The complaint is that it hasn't recovered fast enough and that those "highs" are still too low.

    I love how that chart puts 150,000 jobs at the tippity top as though it's the panacea of all things good. Someone tell the moron who put together than chart that in a good economy, those numbers should be 300k or 400k.

    Lies, damn lies and statistics.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Sep '11 18:49 / 1 edit
    By historical standards, we should have had a good chance to be completely clear of the recession by now with significantly reduced unemployment. 3.5 years out from a recession? In most cases, the economy is booming by now.

    The administration has failed to accomplish that. You want to blame Bush? Fine. Sure. Why not? But don't sit there and tell me how good things are right now in the economy. They still suck. Sure, they suck a little less that they did. But don't give me a bag of crap and tell me it's chocolate mousse

    Obama '12 new slogan:

    "Obama '12: Things suck a little less than they did when I took over!"

    Good luck selling that one, boys.
  6. 01 Sep '11 18:49
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I think the problem is that not enough voters really understood how badly the Republicans and bank fraudsters messed up the economy in 2007 to 2008 - and actually before that. It takes a little bit of understanding, and unfortunately most people just don't have the time to look at it and learn about it. And they have short memories.
    How stupid do you think people are? Congress was in Democratic hands during '07 and '08. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Barrak Obama were leaders in their respective banking committees. Fannie Mae was a Democratic wet dream.
  7. 01 Sep '11 19:06
    Originally posted by sh76
    That middle chart is a classic example of the type of BS you can use to spin numbers.

    As the chart shows, the Bush deficits were never higher than 400B and were under 200B after the DRA. The enormous deficit in 2008 was a result of TARP, passed by the Dem Congress; which was supposed to be a one time thing.

    The HUGE deficit of 2008 was not supposed to co ...[text shortened]... a good economy, those numbers should be 300k or 400k.

    Lies, damn lies and statistics.
    If you look at that third chart you can see the turn around from massive jobs losses to slight jobs gains was very dramatic (during the stimulus). The stimulus ended and we've been stuck at those very slight monthly jobs gains ever since.

    A year and a half later, "see! the stimulus didn't work!"
  8. 01 Sep '11 19:07
    Originally posted by normbenign
    How stupid do you think people are? Congress was in Democratic hands during '07 and '08. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Barrak Obama were leaders in their respective banking committees. Fannie Mae was a Democratic wet dream.
    Please cite which specific legislation the Democrats passed with a veto proof majority that hurt the economy.

    Thanks.
  9. 01 Sep '11 20:05
    Originally posted by sh76
    By historical standards, we should have had a good chance to be completely clear of the recession by now with significantly reduced unemployment. 3.5 years out from a recession? In most cases, the economy is booming by now.

    The administration has failed to accomplish that. You want to blame Bush? Fine. Sure. Why not? But don't sit there and tell me how good ...[text shortened]... suck a little less than they did when I took over!"

    Good luck selling that one, boys.
    You hit the nail on the head, it's alot of BS.....
    why couldn't the president even pass a budget when they had control of both houses, interesting hey? NOT
  10. 01 Sep '11 20:07
    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/steve-forbes-obama-bernanke/2011/08/31/id/409372?s=al&promo_code=CF4D-1
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Sep '11 20:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    If you look at that third chart you can see the turn around from massive jobs losses to slight jobs gains was very dramatic (during the stimulus). The stimulus ended and we've been stuck at those very slight monthly jobs gains ever since.

    A year and a half later, "see! the stimulus didn't work!"
    I never said the stimulus didn't work. Of course every stimulus is going to have some sort of positive effect. The issue with any stimulus is merely whether it's worth the enormous deficits they cause.

    Moreover, I'll concede that the stimulus may have been a good idea (though it could have been allocated better).

    But for every which excuse anyone can come up with, the economy has stagnated over the last year+ when it could have been recovering much more strongly. Furthermore, the budget deficit is obscenely high and out of control. Blame whom or what you like, but the economic policies of this administration have not been the success that the people wanted and were expecting.

    The bigger problem with the OP, of course, is that it absolutely depends on looking at 2008 and nothing else as a baseline. Economics is cyclical. 2008 happens to have been a big downturn, but by and large, the Bush years were not so bad. If you want to compare the mean of the Bush years to the mean of the Obama years, by all means, go ahead. You want to argue that the early Obama years were brought down by circumstances beyond his control and so it's only fair to look at the whole Bush 8 vs. the whole Obama 8 (if he gets it)? Fine. I can buy that. But comparing all the Obama years to 2008 alone is downright ridiculous.
  12. 01 Sep '11 20:30
    Originally posted by sh76
    I never said the stimulus didn't work. Of course every stimulus is going to have some sort of positive effect. The issue with any stimulus is merely whether it's worth the enormous deficits they cause.

    Moreover, I'll concede that the stimulus may have been a good idea (though it could have been allocated better).

    But for every which excuse anyone can com ...[text shortened]... ne. I can buy that. But comparing all the Obama years to 2008 alone is downright ridiculous.
    The problem is it wasn't enough. Nothing decreases deficits like a booming economy. The thing is the gains we did make held even a year and a half later (much to my surprise to be honest). I honestly believe one more big stimulus and we'd be gold, but we both know that's never going to happen.
  13. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    01 Sep '11 20:36 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    That middle chart is a classic example of the type of BS you can use to spin numbers.

    As the chart shows, the Bush deficits were never higher than 400B and were under 200B after the DRA. The enormous deficit in 2008 was a result of TARP, passed by the Dem Congress; which was supposed to be a one time thing.

    The HUGE deficit of 2008 was not supposed to co a good economy, those numbers should be 300k or 400k.

    Lies, damn lies and statistics.
    I'm sure the policies of GW Bush giving Banks, Insurance Co's and Wall Street hacks unfettered license to financially rape the country is a big improvement! 8 years it took Bush to ruin things, now when Obama can't clean up the mess in 2 or 3, we're ready to fire him and elect another supply side idiot Republican promising if we just give a few more tax breaks to the rich, profits to the fortune 500 folks, and less regulation (i.e. no laws!) things will be just dandy!!

    sh76...you can nit pick the stat's all you want, but your Conservative agenda still sucks!
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Sep '11 20:50
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    The problem is it wasn't enough. Nothing decreases deficits like a booming economy. The thing is the gains we did make held even a year and a half later (much to my surprise to be honest). I honestly believe one more big stimulus and we'd be gold, but we both know that's never going to happen.
    Maybe you're right. If you believe that, then vote for someone who will do it.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Sep '11 20:51
    Originally posted by bill718
    I'm sure the policies of GW Bush giving Banks, Insurance Co's and Wall Street hacks unfettered license to financially rape the country is a big improvement! 8 years it took Bush to ruin things, now when Obama can't clean up the mess in 2 or 3, we're ready to fire him and elect another supply side idiot Republican promising if we just give a few more tax brea ...[text shortened]...
    sh76...you can nit pick the stat's all you want, but your Conservative agenda still sucks!
    Your use of the word "your" before the phrase "Conservative agenda" shows that you don't have the first damn clue as to my economic outlook and views.