More proof: Republicans are fiscal disasters

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

When 100% of your posts ar ad hominems or other meaningless drivel, you have now arrived.

So what you are saying is that you have arrived.

We knew that - the post count quadrupled for about an hour and then went back to normal after you left.

What is your point?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

From your own damn source:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx
...

Where's that 8% again??

Indeed - I had consulted the exact same source he did, as well as that alternate inflation calculator.

Note also he skipped Clinton and wanted to compare to Obama's 2009 year. Which is fine if that was the claim he had made, but it was not.

[kelpdiver 2]

heh - I used inflationdate.com's calculator as well.

Jan 1993-2001 - 20.58%
Jan 2001-2009 - 22.79%

Lucky, you have some 'splaining to do.

[billvon 2,426]

Claiming that a political party controls the economy is not all that supportable. The economy functions largely independently, with very minor exceptions (like fiscal policy decisions.)

But all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

seriously considering changing my sig line to this

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Claiming that a political party controls the economy is not all that supportable. The economy functions largely independently, with very minor exceptions (like fiscal policy decisions.)

But all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

Rarely I agree with your analogies. Sometimes I dont even understand them

This one however, not only do I understand, but I think it is very good!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yourmomma 0]

The economy controls the political parties far more than the parties control the economy. Every president since Reagan has made it a priority to LIMIT the control of the economy by the government. With predictable results.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You're making a lot of assumptions about my politics and beliefs. People don't need to be a right-wing extremist to disagree with you. I have no interest in making either Republicans or Democrats look good. GWB was a disaster. Obama is in many ways a vast improvement. The Republicans in congress are mostly acting like spoilt children these days. The Democrats are at least trying to do something, although they really need to grow some balls.

I agree with that, but the part about D's and balls; theyhave and that's what pisses off the right. Finally the pussy RW using reconcilliation far more than the left, all the while decrying the Dems for using it occassionally, have it back in their face with the Dems using it now with HC. The Dems have finally grown some balls. Now, not enough tho, as Lieberman still caucuses with them instead of being tossed out. But the left wants to be calm and rational, so they give a little and look like pussies with issues liek that rather than intolerant of any difference as with the right.

Quote

As for "meaningless", I never quoted anything, so yes, I paraphrased and you should have expected that since I never quoted anything.

This is how it shakes down:

brettski74: You apparently skipped over the conclusions at the end where he stated that these kind of comparisons are meaningless,...

The Author: But the fact that they are correct doesn’t mean the figures are even remotely meaningful.

You can zig-zag all you want, you should man-up and admit you morphed it a bit to make your point. It happens, next time you will say something like, 'it seems the author feels this is meaningless.' You did write, "...he stated that these kind of comparisons are meaningless,..." so you don't really need quotes with that kind of statement. If you've ever played the game where person #1 starts out with a story and tells it to another and this continues for several people and the last person's story is examoned and usuallu far different, this is a prime example of that error. See, he said, "But the fact that they are correct doesn’t mean the figures are even remotely meaningful." and you follow with, "...these kind of comparisons are meaningless,...

Did did misstate what the author stated to benefit your point.

Quote

If I'd said: He stated, "These kinds of comparisons are meaningless." - you might a point, albeit a tiny one.

Oh so now even a direct quote with quotations are just trivial procedure; I think I know who I'm arguing with here. Is English and the rules of it just an obstacle? I appreciate your wiggling, but to overtly state that direct quotes are just paraphrasations really lowers your stock value.

Quote

Academic articles paraphrase their sources all the time, but since you believe it wrong to paraphrase in any way...

I don't believe it is wrong to paraphrase and I do it all the time, but I just qualify it as such. You would be a lawyer's cross-examination dream; this is how a person gets ripped apart.

BRETT: He said X, Y, and Z.

LAWYER: Didn't he really say A, B and C?

BRETT: Well yes, but but it was kinda the same thing.

LAWYER: Do you want this jury to believe anything you say when you misrepresent people's statements with your own?

BRETT: Hey, it's all the same thing.

JURY:

Quote

one thing that becomes clear if you do is that you can get just about any result you like by playing with the start date and the assumed lag time before presidential policies start taking effect...

Quote

While this is an entertaining Demonstration to play with, ultimately what it shows is that the Times‘ Op-Chart, while amusing, is really just one not-very-representative snapshot of a very complicated situation.

Quote

It doesn’t matter who is in charge, the market is saying, in the long run it’s going to be OK.

Quote

In addition to ignoring his conclusions about how meaningful or otherwise these graphs are, you've also conveniently ignored that his most detailed model (ie. the one that includes inflation effects as well as dividends) showed better performance by investing in Republican years.

This is why I agree that 25:1 is extreme, 6:1, as with the othr article I posted is probably more reliable and these were written 2 years ago, so we can bump that a little bit. As well, I don't cite an article, write 1 sentence and say, 'See, see, it's all true.' I cite articles and make a lot of commentary. I realize the RW usually uses the other method and has a hard time understanding what's wrong with constantly posting a big cut-n-paste with 1 very small sentence of their own.

I do agree that there isn't a 1:1 ratio of X Party = Y outcome, but the evidence is overwhelming considering the crashing under Repub policy an the growth under Dems over 80 years. Can itbe a coincidence? Not totally for that long.

Quote

You're really playing the same game as Fox News. You can do better than that. Fox News is about as fair and balanced as a black bear on a surfboard and as a result have absolutely no credibility in my view. When you similarly ignore data that conflicts with your agenda, you also have little credibility.

What data am I ignoring; THE DATA WHERE THEY MORPH TIMELINES? Thsi hypothetical data you are embracing as tho it were true and you claim I have a credibility problem???? I do agree that dividends bring the 25:1 down some, but as for market growth it's hard to argue that the market surges under Dems and has for 80 years, if you want to call 80 years of data coincidence like Bill does then have a good time.

Quote

I often agree with your general position if not your exact points, but it's posts like this that weaken your whole position.

Of course an ad hominem is required and becuase, as you say, I must be discredible, the 80-year set of overwhelming evidence is invlaid.

Quote

This is why academic magazines have peer review before publishing articles. You'll note that your usual supporters aren't here. I wonder why? Perhaps it's because your position here would not stand up to peer review.

Do you think professional (PhD) economists comment on issues such as these that are political? My hunch is they do not, but perhaps they do. Maybe someone can research an article written bya PhD in this area that has been reviewed. BTW, thx for the 3rd grade understanding of how peer-reviewed journals are read by peers before publication, I had forgotten that like 20 years ao.

Quote

If you want to criticize and demonize the Republicans, go right ahead, but try to pick a convincing and supportable argument, otherwise you're just playing the same game as Fox News

Obviously you didn't read my posts, as I like Eisenhower and GHWB, for that matter Teddy Roosevelt, so I'm not you and just partisan.

Quote

WHEN RICH PEOPLE GET FREE MONEY VIA TAX CUTS, THEY SAVE IT, HENCE THEY ARE RICH. WHEN POOR PEOPLE GET MONEY THEY SPEND IT, STIMULATING THE ECONOMY.

Quote

Shouting something doesn't make it more true, but regardless, if you're trying to show that democrats do more to help elevate the poor, why are we looking at the Dow Jones Index?

How in the fuck is this a discussion about the poor Mr Strawman? What I was quite obviously saying is that the rich stagnate teh economy, the poor stimulate it; tax cuts are bad for the economy sinc eit allows the rich to pool inactive money. If you're offended by me emphasizing my key points I just don't give a fuck.

Quote

As for the rich, well a large portion of their money is in the stock market and due to the way that they think, they'll pretty much do well regardless of who's in the whitehouse.

Really? You don't think the rich did amazingly well under Clinton and crashed under GWB? The same with Hoover v FDR? Just keep the 'coincidence argument' alive and well and enough people will believe it.

Quote

I'm not a big fan of the stock market. It's become an almost purely speculative vehicle.

Actually more of a manipulation playground for the rich.

Quote

Many of those rises in the Dow on those graphs ended up being the slow transfer of wealth from novice to sophisticated investors, so in the end, the performance of the Dow doesn't really show much about elevation of the lower or middle classes.

Of course, and deregulation under the Repubs facilitates this.

Quote

If you really want to look at that, I'd suggest finding median and 85th percentile data for incomes - preferably after tax and adjusted for inflation. Unemployment rates would be another potentially good measure as may be inflation and/ affordability ratios. I've no idea how that would look, but it would be a much better indication of government influence on elevating the poor than stock market performance.

But my argument isn't that of gov's influence on the poor, it's more about the political party's influenc on the market.

[Lucky... 0]

I used this table: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/consumer_price_index/historicalcpi.aspx which tabulates inflation differently. I don't know the components of the CPI, but it seems impossible to not have massive inflation as house prices doubled, gas doubled-tripled and food shot up. Any info on the components of the CPI?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yeah, the National Debt is now 13T and is up 50% in just the last two years.

Who is in charge the last two years again?

And the U.S. House of Representatives does not intend to pass a budget resolution..... Who is in charge of the House again?

GWB left = 10.7T

Now = 13.1T

diff 2.4T

The debt would have to be 16T in order for you to be right. Not to mention GWB gave Obama a record deficit that was climbing, unemp that was soaring (3.4% in the year preceeding) and a banking system on the verge of total collapse. Of course if we ignore that then all is well.

If we clamped down on the debt as you wish by cutting social programs, of course keep the military massive and growth to fight our imaginary enemy, we would enjoy the GD part II.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Claiming that a political party controls the economy is not all that supportable. The economy functions largely independently, with very minor exceptions (like fiscal policy decisions.)

Massive tax cuts / increaases GREATLY effect the market and entire economy. Bill, 80 years is a little too much to ignore.

Quote

But all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

You don't think tax policy is as huge as the rudder that the cruise ship comes equipped with? Multi-trillion dollar shifts of wealth don't effect the economy????

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Claiming that a political party controls the economy is not all that supportable. The economy functions largely independently, with very minor exceptions (like fiscal policy decisions.)

But all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

Rarely I agree with your analogies. Sometimes I dont even understand them

This one however, not only do I understand, but I think it is very good!

Then you'll also agree that multi-trillion dollar shifts of wealth have little effect on the multi-trillion dollar economy. Tax cuts let the rich hang on to their greed, tax increases shift that to the lower classes; why all the worry about taxes if there is no impact? Hard to argue bith sides unless, well, you talk from both sides of your mouth.

How many times do we read your totally unsustantiated drivel about trickle-down policy being beneficial for the economy, yet now you say presidents / congress has little effect on the economy. Ya kinda stepped in it there.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

When 100% of your posts ar ad hominems or other meaningless drivel, you have now arrived.

So what you are saying is that you have arrived.

We knew that - the post count quadrupled for about an hour and then went back to normal after you left.

What is your point?

There are adults talking here, talking about substantive issues, we don't need you here post-counting or doing other meaningless tasks - run along.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Claiming that a political party controls the economy is not all that supportable. The economy functions largely independently, with very minor exceptions (like fiscal policy decisions.)

But all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

Rarely I agree with your analogies. Sometimes I dont even understand them

This one however, not only do I understand, but I think it is very good!

Then you'll also agree that multi-trillion dollar shifts of wealth have little effect on the multi-trillion dollar economy. Tax cuts let the rich hang on to their greed, tax increases shift that to the lower classes; why all the worry about taxes if there is no impact? Hard to argue bith sides unless, well, you talk from both sides of your mouth.

Hi Lucky

Your world is so distorted I care less what you post or think anymore

Cause YOU would have to admit that 20 years of job growth, growth of money to the fed treasurey, growth to the number of families becoming middle class and some of the lowest unemployment that came from the Regan polices

Debt? Sure Tip O'Neal stated the Regans budgets were DOA and the Dems had so destroyed the military over the years it took money to fix it

So, have fun with this but know I know you dont know what you think you know, you know?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The economy controls the political parties far more than the parties control the economy.

Great theory, let's see examples.

Quote

Every president since Reagan has made it a priority to LIMIT the control of the economy by the government. With predictable results.

Clinton limited control? Really? Why all the crying about his tax increases and other controls he's placed on the economy? Why all the crying about Obama doing the same? The R's grow the gov while limiting control.

[hwt 0]

Quote

heh - I used inflationdate.com's calculator as well.

Jan 1993-2001 - 20.58%
Jan 2001-2009 - 22.79%

Lucky, you have some 'splaining to do.

__________________________________________________
Its no use even trying to explain to the liberals because they know so much about economics such as taxing more creates more jobs and more incentives to hire more that way they can be taxed more.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I used this table: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/consumer_price_index/historicalcpi.aspx which tabulates inflation differently. I don't know the components of the CPI, but it seems impossible to not have massive inflation as house prices doubled, gas doubled-tripled and food shot up. Any info on the components of the CPI?

Then kindly share the math you used to claim an 8% inflation rate using the CPI, because I don't see it there either.

Since you don't know the components of the CPI (and neither do I), why would you tabulate inflation from that instead of the official inflation figures provided on the same place?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There are adults talking here, talking about substantive issues, we don't need you here post-counting or doing other meaningless tasks - run along.

you left out "making up data."

The alternate page you keep citing on inflation data has the exact same information as the one Gawain and I used. Your page doesn't do percentages, it does values against a baseline year. But if you divide Jan of 2009, 2001 and 1993 appropriately, you still see that there was higher inflation in the Clinton era.

This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The dotcom boom was great while it lasted, but booms and bubbles are inflationary. And when it burst, and unemployment shot up, people spent less, and inflationary pressures dropped. Why do you think 2009 was negative?

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

Claiming that a political party controls the economy is not all that supportable. The economy functions largely independently, with very minor exceptions (like fiscal policy decisions.)

But all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

Thank you

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Claiming that a political party controls the economy is not all that supportable. The economy functions largely independently, with very minor exceptions (like fiscal policy decisions.)

But all in all, claiming that a political party can control the economy is like claiming you can steer a cruise ship by having the waiters lean to one side.

Bravo!!!!!!!!!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

GWB left = 10.7T

Now = 13.1T

GWB added 4T over 8 years

Obama has added 2.4T in ~17 mths.

2.4T is greater than half of 4T, and he has done it in way less than half the time.

And my 50% was to GDP

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/07/obamas-debt-problem/1The CBO said publicly held debt will make up more than 60 % of the Gross Domestic Product this year,

Quote

If we clamped down on the debt as you wish by cutting social programs, of course keep the military massive and growth to fight our imaginary enemy, we would enjoy the GD part II.

And if we followed your dream of taxing the people that actually do things to give to those too lazy to work we would have everyone living is Govt housing.... till it got too expensive and then chaos.

But you will not be happy till my paycheck goes into your account.

[Amazon 7]

Why deficit has mushroomed


Analysis finds that Bush policies, economic recessions are largely to blame
Monday, June 15, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.

With bailouts of banks and automakers, an economic stimulus package and ambitious programs to address health care, energy and education, President Barack Obama is absorbing a lot of heat from critics who say he is chiefly responsible for driving up the nation’s budget deficit.

But those critics are full of hot air.

David Leonhardt, who writes an economics column for The New York Times and who worked for BusinessWeek magazine, analyzed nearly a decade’s worth of reports from the Congressional Budget Office.

His analysis centered on the fact that when President Bill Clinton completed his second term in January 2001 the budget office projected that the federal government would enjoy annual surpluses of more than $800 billion from 2009 to 2012. Instead, the U.S. is expected to have annual budget deficits of $1.2 trillion in those years, a negative swing of $2 trillion.

What Leonhardt found — as reprinted in a column Saturday in the Las Vegas Sun — is that the recession of 2001 and the current recession, coupled with the policies of former Republican President George W. Bush, is responsible for 70 percent of that swing.

Democrat Obama can be linked to the remaining 30 percent, but the bulk of that has to do with the continuation of Bush policies — including the Iraq war, Wall Street bailout and tax cuts — that are also supported by Republicans in Congress.

Only one-tenth of the negative swing can be tied directly to the stimulus package or to other domestic programs being pursued by Obama.

What this means is that Obama is wrongfully shouldering the lion’s share of blame for the nation’s budget problems, most of which he inherited.

We have said all along that Obama would be inheriting one mess after another from the Bush administration. What is getting tiresome is listening to critics of deficit spending who seem to have forgotten that this financial train wreck started long before Obama took office.

[kelpdiver 2]

your quote was simple: "Yeah, the National Debt is now 13T and is up 50% in just the last two years. "

And wrong. There's only one way to read this sentence.

If you mean to say compared to Bush, or as part of GDP, you need to write that. Otherwise, it's just as false as Lucky claiming that inflation was low under Clinton and high under Bush.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

GWB left = 10.7T

Now = 13.1T

GWB added 4T over 8 years

Obama has added 2.4T in ~17 mths.

2.4T is greater than half of 4T, and he has done it in way less than half the time.

And my 50% was to GDP

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/07/obamas-debt-problem/1The CBO said publicly held debt will make up more than 60 % of the Gross Domestic Product this year,

Quote

If we clamped down on the debt as you wish by cutting social programs, of course keep the military massive and growth to fight our imaginary enemy, we would enjoy the GD part II.

And if we followed your dream of taxing the people that actually do things to give to those too lazy to work we would have everyone living is Govt housing.... till it got too expensive and then chaos.

But you will not be happy till my paycheck goes into your account.

Bush increase was just shy of 5T (4.9T)

Obama's record so far: 2.4T

49% of the total of the Bush years in 19% of the time.

If you look at who controlled Congress for Bush/Obama, the Dems are at 148% of the increase in 59% of the time.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

His analysis centered on the fact that when President Bill Clinton completed his second term in January 2001 the budget office projected that the federal government would enjoy annual surpluses of more than $800 billion from 2009 to 2012. Instead, the U.S. is expected to have annual budget deficits of $1.2 trillion in those years, a negative swing of $2 trillion.

...
Only one-tenth of the negative swing can be tied directly to the stimulus package or to other domestic programs being pursued by Obama.

so here is the math he used:

take an 8 year old forecast that had limited value. Take it's 2B swing conclusion and multiple by 4. That gives you 8B.

Now you take this $787B stimulus package and then ignore all of the ones based on returned TARP money (charge that "debt" to Bush) and you get < 10% (787B / 8T).

If a fortune 500 company used that sort of accounting, they'd go to jail for fraud.

The TARP kitty is the most offensive of the tactics being used. This isn't found money, merely the return of (often) forced loans that were financed by debt.