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

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    18 Aug '16 17:21 / 1 edit
    What's with the GOP and the economy?? Every time I hear a speech from Donald Trump or listen to anyone on Fox news, all I hear about the economy is "terrible" "horrible" "a disaster" I'm not necessarily an Obama fan, since I think his foreign policy is (at best) inconsistent, but on 8/11 the NYSE, S&P 500 and NASDAQ hit all time highs on the same day, unemployment is about 5%, the national debt has been paid down each of the last 3 years. All in all, not a bad economic report, and far better than when Obama took office. So, why is the GOP so very sour on this economy? Do they think G.W. Bush's economy was better? Yes, we still face some economic issues, but I don't understand all the doom and gloom from the GOP.
  2. 18 Aug '16 23:16
    Originally posted by mchill
    What's with the GOP and the economy?? Every time I hear a speech from Donald Trump or listen to anyone on Fox news, all I hear about the economy is "terrible" "horrible" "a disaster" I'm not necessarily an Obama fan, since I think his foreign policy is (at best) inconsistent, but on 8/11 the NYSE, S&P 500 and NASDAQ hit all time highs on the same day, unemplo ...[text shortened]... we still face some economic issues, but I don't understand all the doom and gloom from the GOP.
    Economic growth has only been around 1% under Obama, this is the lowest in over 2 decades.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/

    You speak of paying the debt down yet every year the government runs deficits. We are almost to $20 trillion in debt. This rises exponentially yet no sense of urgency is seen in tackling it, nor has a government ever run up such debt so it is essentially uncharted territory.

    Unemployment may read 5% but understand that this may include many part time jobs and exclude those who have given up on trying to find jobs. It also includes many full times jobs at minimum wage.
  3. 19 Aug '16 02:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by mchill
    What's with the GOP and the economy?? Every time I hear a speech from Donald Trump or listen to anyone on Fox news, all I hear about the economy is "terrible" "horrible" "a disaster" I'm not necessarily an Obama fan, since I think his foreign policy is (at best) inconsistent, but on 8/11 the NYSE, S&P 500 and NASDAQ hit all time highs on the same day, unemplo ...[text shortened]... we still face some economic issues, but I don't understand all the doom and gloom from the GOP.
    "I don't understand all the doom and gloom from the GOP."
    --Mchill

    Does Mchill really expect the GOP to concede in the middle of a US Presidential campaign
    that the US economy is in relatively good shape under a Democratic president?
    Can Mchill comprehend the concept of lying (or dishonest distortion) for political purposes?

    "...listen to anyone on Fox news..."
    --Mchill

    Perhaps Mchill should pay more attention to other sources, unless he enjoys gazing at the Fox anchorwomen's legs.
    (That's a joke alluding to my thread about Gretchen Carlson and sexual harassment at Fox News.)
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Aug '16 14:19
    Originally posted by mchill
    What's with the GOP and the economy?? Every time I hear a speech from Donald Trump or listen to anyone on Fox news, all I hear about the economy is "terrible" "horrible" "a disaster" I'm not necessarily an Obama fan, since I think his foreign policy is (at best) inconsistent, but on 8/11 the NYSE, S&P 500 and NASDAQ hit all time highs on the same day, unemplo ...[text shortened]... we still face some economic issues, but I don't understand all the doom and gloom from the GOP.
    Your fundamental point is accurate, but you need to be more careful with your terminology, understanding or both.

    === the national debt has been paid down each of the last 3 years ===

    What you meant was that the annual budget deficit has been decreasing. In fact, the national debt has increased every year since 2001, since that was the last time the US registered a budget surplus.

    While the current budget deficits aren't as bad as they were a few years ago, they're still terrible by historical standards.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Aug '16 14:24 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    Economic growth has only been around 1% under Obama, this is the lowest in over 2 decades.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/

    You speak of paying the debt down yet every year the government runs deficits. We are almost to $20 trillion in debt. This rises exponentially yet no sense of urgency is seen in tackling it, nor has a government ever run up s ...[text shortened]... ho have given up on trying to find jobs. It also includes many full times jobs at minimum wage.
    Bizarre that whodey gets 5 thumbs down for his most accurate post in weeks.

    A couple of minor corrections:

    Economic growth under Obama has averaged more like 1.5%, not 1% and that number is largely hampered by the recession of 2009, which really was not Obama's fault. So the stat, while true, is misleading.

    Also, while the national debt is increasing, it's difficult to argue that it's increasing "exponentially." It's increasing at a slower rate than it was in 2009 and 2010.
  6. Standard member vivify
    rain
    19 Aug '16 14:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Bizarre that whodey gets 5 thumbs down for his most accurate post in weeks.
    Originally posted by sh76
    So the stat [by whodey], while true, is misleading.

    That's why.
  7. 19 Aug '16 14:50
    Originally posted by sh76
    Your fundamental point is accurate, but you need to be more careful with your terminology, understanding or both.

    === the national debt has been paid down each of the last 3 years ===

    What you meant was that the annual budget deficit has been decreasing. In fact, the national debt has [b]increased
    every year since 2001, since that was the last time th ...[text shortened]... cits aren't as bad as they were a few years ago, they're still terrible by historical standards.[/b]
    so even though the deficit has been steadily falling since the bush years when it reached a peak, it's still terrible and somehow obama's fault?
  8. 19 Aug '16 16:36
    Originally posted by vivify
    Originally posted by sh76
    [b]So the stat [by whodey], while true, is misleading.

    That's why.[/b]
    Yes, that 0.5% makes such a difference.
  9. 19 Aug '16 16:41
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yes, that 0.5% makes such a difference.
    It makes a 50% difference.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Aug '16 16:55
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    so even though the deficit has been steadily falling since the bush years when it reached a peak, it's still terrible and somehow obama's fault?
    First, I didn't say it was Obama's fault.

    Second, the highest deficit was 2009, by which year Obama was President.

    Third, the fact that the deficit has been becoming less terrible each year is not anything to brag about. 2009 is a terrible point of reference. It was during a massive recession and included a truckload of stimulus spending. 2009 should have been a terrible aberration, not a new standard upon which to try to improve upon.

    That the deficit has not come down faster and is still very high by historical standards is something that it is fair to hold Obama accountable for (at least in part).
  11. 19 Aug '16 17:05
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It makes a 50% difference.
    1.5% is still terrible dingleberry