PDA

View Full Version : APP - The Bush Recession... Much worse than the Carter Recession was!



Pages : [1] 2

Jarod
08-24-2009, 12:07 PM
Wow, all those Republicans who blamed Carter for the poor economic times just after he left office.... are in a pickle now arnt they?


If what they have been shouting for years about Carter is true... Its 10x's worse for Bush, right?


See what Conservatism will do the the economy?

Cancel5
08-24-2009, 12:08 PM
Wow, all those Republicans who blamed Carter for the poor economic times just after he left office.... are in a pickle now arnt they?


If what they have been shouting for years about Carter is true... Its 10x's worse for Bush, right?


See what Conservatism will do the the economy?

I blame the Federal Reserve

Jarod
08-24-2009, 12:11 PM
I blame the Federal Reserve

Im sure, anyone but a conservative.

uscitizen
08-24-2009, 12:40 PM
I blame the shortsighted greed of all of America.

belme1201
08-24-2009, 01:28 PM
Wow, all those Republicans who blamed Carter for the poor economic times just after he left office.... are in a pickle now arnt they?


If what they have been shouting for years about Carter is true... Its 10x's worse for Bush, right?


See what Conservatism will do the the economy?

From 2001 to 2009 all private sector job growth in the previous ten years had all but disappeared from 25% in the previous period to 2% at the start of 2009 - Bureau of Labor Statistics

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 01:29 PM
Wow, all those Republicans who blamed Carter for the poor economic times just after he left office.... are in a pickle now arnt they?


If what they have been shouting for years about Carter is true... Its 10x's worse for Bush, right?


See what Conservatism will do the the economy? Maybe you're too young to remember Carter's economy, with interest rates at 21%, gas lines around the block, inflation and unemployed rampant, and US diplomats held hostage for over 400 days. Or maybe you're so old you forgot. LOL

Bush was hardly fiscally conservative. *shrug*

uscitizen
08-24-2009, 01:30 PM
From 2001 to 2009 all private sector job growth in the previous ten years had all but disappeared from 25% in the previous period to 2% at the start of 2009 - Bureau of Labor Statistics

So any job growth was pretty much because of govt spending?

belme1201
08-24-2009, 01:50 PM
Wow, all those Republicans who blamed Carter for the poor economic times just after he left office.... are in a pickle now arnt they?


If what they have been shouting for years about Carter is true... Its 10x's worse for Bush, right?


See what Conservatism will do the the economy?

From 2001 to 2009 private sector job growth in the previous ten years had all but disappeared from 25% in the previous period to 2% at the start of 2009 - Bureau of Labor Statistics
By the way, for comparison, the number was about 25% when Carter left office, down to 17% during Reagan's first term, rising to 30% in 85 then declining to 24% to begin bush I. Though Reagan had reached 30% during his tenure, he left office with job creation at appr. the same rate as when Carter left office

uscitizen
08-24-2009, 01:52 PM
Maybe you're too young to remember Carter's economy, with interest rates at 21%, gas lines around the block, inflation and unemployed rampant, and US diplomats held hostage for over 400 days. Or maybe you're so old you forgot. LOL

Bush was hardly fiscally conservative. *shrug*

Unemeplyment not as rampant as now.
And artificially low interest rates helped this recession to happen.

Topspin
08-24-2009, 01:53 PM
Jarod knows less than Watermark about the economy.
I'm going to the other thread to for more comedy.

belme1201
08-24-2009, 01:58 PM
So any job growth was pretty much because of govt spending?

In a nutshell.

Topspin
08-24-2009, 02:10 PM
Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan.

belme1201
08-24-2009, 02:10 PM
Maybe you're too young to remember Carter's economy, with interest rates at 21%, gas lines around the block, inflation and unemployed rampant, and US diplomats held hostage for over 400 days. Or maybe you're so old you forgot. LOL

Bush was hardly fiscally conservative. *shrug*

Nobody's forgetting anything, time distorts, but numbers don't lie. Check the employment numbers, e.g.
Whatever bush was, he was yours.

Topspin
08-24-2009, 02:17 PM
Carter was light years worse

evince
08-24-2009, 02:18 PM
only in your myth filled mind

Jarod
08-24-2009, 02:35 PM
Maybe you're too young to remember Carter's economy, with interest rates at 21%, gas lines around the block, inflation and unemployed rampant, and US diplomats held hostage for over 400 days. Or maybe you're so old you forgot. LOL

Bush was hardly fiscally conservative. *shrug*

I love how now they try to disavow Bush!

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 02:49 PM
Unemeplyment not as rampant as now.
And artificially low interest rates helped this recession to happen. we're only 6 months into Obama's presidency- be patient.

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 02:50 PM
Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan. Perhaps Obama will lose to Palin with the same magnitude. :)

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 02:51 PM
Nobody's forgetting anything, time distorts, but numbers don't lie. Check the employment numbers, e.g.
Whatever bush was, he was yours. I'm a conservative first, Republican distant second. I'm on record as far back as 2000 that Bush was a better politician than a conservative.

Jarod
08-24-2009, 02:57 PM
I'm a conservative first, Republican distant second. I'm on record as far back as 2000 that Bush was a better politician than a conservative.

I love how they are trying to say that America's most conservative president ever was not a real conservative not that the conservative agenda failed miserably!


Ha...... Love it!

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 02:59 PM
Are you referring to Bush 43? LOL

Cancel5
08-24-2009, 03:06 PM
I love how now they try to disavow Bush!
disembowel, what, huh?

Cancel5
08-24-2009, 03:08 PM
Are you referring to Bush 43? LOL
Bush 43 was only better after his son came online.

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 03:23 PM
Bush 43 was only better after his son came online. Best check your numbers, Sweet Cheeks. GHWB was 41, GWB, 41. *shrug*

Cancel5
08-24-2009, 04:04 PM
Best check your numbers, Sweet Cheeks. GHWB was 41, GWB, 41. *shrug*

Oh, thanks, my typo! I meant Bush 41, damn, did I just predict the real live Omen...

belme1201
08-24-2009, 04:48 PM
I'm a conservative first, Republican distant second. I'm on record as far back as 2000 that Bush was a better politician than a conservative.



And I thought he was a lousy politician and an obedient Conservative, my mistake.

tinfoil
08-24-2009, 06:46 PM
only in your myth filled mind

LOL

please do a comparison of clothing, used cars, and communications from both periods.

Clothing is about half as much in adjusted dollars. Used cars are light years ahead in quality for the same adjusted dollars and fuel economy is much better too. Making phone calls is way cheaper in adjusted dollars. All these things make
NOW a whole lot easier to make ends meet than it was back THEN


who's in fantasy land?

christiefan915
08-24-2009, 06:53 PM
Best check your numbers, Sweet Cheeks. GHWB was 41, GWB, 41. *shrug*

You mean GWB, 43. *wink*

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 07:08 PM
You mean GWB, 43. *wink* oops. :)

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 07:09 PM
And I thought he was a lousy politician and an obedient Conservative, my mistake. Not a problem if you can learn from it. *shrug*

Cancel5
08-24-2009, 07:09 PM
oops. :)
It's okay, we all do it at times.

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 07:10 PM
Oh, thanks, my typo! I meant Bush 41, damn, did I just predict the real live Omen... Make that both of us. :o

Epicurus
08-24-2009, 07:16 PM
I love how they are trying to say that America's most conservative president ever was not a real conservative not that the conservative agenda failed miserably!


Ha...... Love it!

Massive lolz at anyone who thinks that Bush was "America's most conservative president ever".

FUCK THE POLICE
08-24-2009, 07:18 PM
Massive lolz at anyone who thinks that Bush was "America's most conservative president ever".

I think Reagan was probably the most "conservative". I'm not sure you could consider a conservative in the modern sense, although he did decrease government spending to some of the lowest levels ever.

uscitizen
08-24-2009, 07:18 PM
Perhaps Obama will lose to Palin with the same magnitude. :)

And about 4-6 years later listen to you say, "Palin was not a conservative"?

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 07:19 PM
Massive lolz at anyone who thinks that Bush was "America's most conservative president ever". It is rather odd the delusions they must maintain in order to justify their opinions.

DamnYankee
08-24-2009, 07:20 PM
And about 4-6 years later listen to you say, "Palin was not a conservative"? When did I ever say that Bush- either of them- was conservative? :pke:

uscitizen
08-24-2009, 07:24 PM
I think Reagan was probably the most "conservative". I'm not sure you could consider a conservative in the modern sense, although he did decrease government spending to some of the lowest levels ever.

Huh he started out with a bit under 1 trillion federal debt and left with well over twice that.

belme1201
08-24-2009, 08:20 PM
Huh he started out with a bit under 1 trillion federal debt and left with well over twice that.

Reagan never presented a balanced budget to Congress. Spending increased and his deficit was only topped by bush jr.

belme1201
08-24-2009, 08:22 PM
I think Reagan was probably the most "conservative". I'm not sure you could consider a conservative in the modern sense, although he did decrease government spending to some of the lowest levels ever.

Starting with "although" are you talking about Reagan? If you are, the statement is absolutely untrue.

belme1201
08-24-2009, 08:24 PM
I love how now they try to disavow Bush!

Can you blame them?

belme1201
08-24-2009, 08:28 PM
Carter was light years worse





...and the Wizard of Oz was better yet.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 07:50 AM
Bush had more Americans killed in combat.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 07:53 AM
I love how now they try to disavow Bush!

Bush is a Republican, no one is questioning that or stating otherwise. But in NO way can you say he was a FISCAL conservative. Not with the way he outspent his revenue.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 07:55 AM
Bush is a Republican, no one is questioning that or stating otherwise. But in NO way can you say he was a FISCAL conservative. Not with the way he outspent his revenue.

Thats what happens when a fiscal conservative gets in power. Spending outstrips revenue. Its because they plan based on a flawed theory that a decrease in taxation always results in a huge increase in revenue.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 07:56 AM
Bush was a hardcore conservative and look at what happened.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 07:56 AM
I love how they are trying to say that America's most conservative president ever was not a real conservative not that the conservative agenda failed miserably!


Ha...... Love it!

You truly are quite the foolish little lad due to believe such a silly little idea. What 'conservative' agenda failed? What failed was the government (both parties) interfering with regulations established to protect against exactly the scenario that played out. The removal of Glass Steagall (by both parties), the pressure from the government on banks to loan money when they previously would not have all in the name of 'more people own homes than ever before' were both a huge part of what went wrong.

This was not a conservative agenda... it was moronic politicians trying to play God. (this is not to say politicians were solely responsible, as discussed before, there is plenty of blame to go around)

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 07:57 AM
Bush was a hardcore conservative and look at what happened.

Anyone who believes Bush was a hardcore conservative is an idiot. Bush was a social conservative. He was NOT a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

DamnYankee
08-25-2009, 07:57 AM
Proof that some liberals are incapable of recognizing simple truths:


Thats what happens when a fiscal conservative gets in power. Spending outstrips revenue. Its because they plan based on a flawed theory that a decrease in taxation always results in a huge increase in revenue.


Bush was a hardcore conservative and look at what happened.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:00 AM
Idiot. Bush was a social conservative. He was NOT a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Show me where "fiscal conservatives" voted against a single item in his adgenda?


Are you saying there were no "fiscal conservatives" in congress?

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:06 AM
Show me where "fiscal conservatives" voted against a single item in his adgenda?


Are you saying there were no "fiscal conservatives" in congress?

How could a "fiscal conservative" go six years without vetoing a spending bill? Look at the number of spending veto's Reagan had vs. Bush. A lot of so-called 'fiscally conservative Republicans' lost their way during the Bush years and many of them (rightfully) got voted out of office.

Damocles
08-25-2009, 08:07 AM
Show me where "fiscal conservatives" voted against a single item in his adgenda?


Are you saying there were no "fiscal conservatives" in congress?
Those who gave up on fiscal conservative to follow Bush into the night were voted out of office, it helped your party to gain their majority.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:10 AM
Show me where "fiscal conservatives" voted against a single item in his adgenda?


Are you saying there were no "fiscal conservatives" in congress?

Anyone? Was the Republican party devoid of fiscal conservatism? Why did these so called "fiscal conservative" representatives fail to say anything or stand up? Show me where they voted against one of Bush's liberal spending plans!

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:11 AM
How could a "fiscal conservative" go six years without vetoing a spending bill? Look at the number of spending veto's Reagan had vs. Bush. A lot of so-called 'fiscally conservative Republicans' lost their way during the Bush years and many of them (rightfully) got voted out of office.

So, who is a fiscal conservative? Show me some bill that Bush supported that was voted down by the "fiscal conservatives"?

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 08:13 AM
Thats what happens when a fiscal conservative gets in power. Spending outstrips revenue. Its because they plan based on a flawed theory that a decrease in taxation always results in a huge increase in revenue.

This again shows your ignorance. That is NOT what a fiscal conservative believes. While decreases in taxation do increase revenues in the short term, you have to have spending cuts to go along with the tax cuts for them to be sustainable for the long term.

DamnYankee
08-25-2009, 08:13 AM
...despite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive. The president has been quite willing to sell out the national interest for perceived political gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors or farmers...http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/01/00008/

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:14 AM
So, who is a fiscal conservative? Show me some bill that Bush supported that was voted down by the "fiscal conservatives"?

Did you not the see the ass whooping Republicans took in 2006 and 2008? WTF dude? You pull an Austin Power's and just wake up after being frozen for the past few years?

Go look at arguments some Republicans made against the Pill Bill for your example.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 08:14 AM
Show me where "fiscal conservatives" voted against a single item in his adgenda?


Are you saying there were no "fiscal conservatives" in congress?

I am not saying there were NO fiscal conservatives, but they were most certainly not in the majority and either did not have enough power to control the spending or they did not use the power if they did have it.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:15 AM
Did you not the see the ass whooping Republicans took in 2006 and 2008? WTF dude? You pull an Austin Power's and just wake up after being frozen for the past few years?

Go look at arguments some Republicans made against the Pill Bill for your example.

Okay, tell me of a "fiscal conservative" in Congress. Or do they not exist?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:16 AM
I am not saying there were NO fiscal conservatives, but they were most certainly not in the majority and either did not have enough power to control the spending or they did not use the power if they did have it.

Ahhh, so the Conservative party did not have any conservatives? Interesting....

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:16 AM
Okay, tell me of a "fiscal conservative" in Congress. Or do they not exist?

search Jon Kyle for one

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:17 AM
Idiot. Bush was a social conservative. He was NOT a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Damo, Superfreak is not to be calling me an idiot in this area is he?

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:17 AM
Ahhh, so the Conservative party did not have any conservatives? Interesting....

jesus christ dude, is this the definition of being 'obtuse'?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:17 AM
Those who gave up on fiscal conservative to follow Bush into the night were voted out of office, it helped your party to gain their majority.

No that was merely the failure of conservatism.

DamnYankee
08-25-2009, 08:21 AM
jesus christ dude, is this the definition of being 'obtuse'?
Jarod is aiming for an award today for "the biggest shit poster".

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 08:23 AM
Ahhh, so the Conservative party did not have any conservatives? Interesting....

Your opinion is truly idiotic. I feel sorry for anyone who selects you to represent them.... or are you simply one of the lowly court appointed lawyers?

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:23 AM
Jarod is aiming for an award today for "the biggest shit poster".

it's early in the day but he's taking a very large lead.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 08:24 AM
No that was merely the failure of conservatism.

To ignore you go.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:27 AM
You truly are an idiot. I feel sorry for anyone who selects you to represent them.... or are you simply one of the lowly court appointed lawyers?

Again Damo, is this allowed here?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:28 AM
To ignore you go.

Just like a "conservative" ignore instead of healthy debate. Ignore anyone who belives differently than you!

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 08:29 AM
Just like a "conservative" ignore instead of healthy debate. Ignore anyone who belives differently than you!

This is not a healthy debate. This is you trying to prove to the world just how foolish you are.

Damocles
08-25-2009, 08:30 AM
So, who is a fiscal conservative? Show me some bill that Bush supported that was voted down by the "fiscal conservatives"?
Again silliness...

http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/19/republican-party-split-cx_1020oxan_republicans.html

Read the article. The Fiscal Conservatives were creating the divide, while they looked past some things for a while to support "The Global War on Terror" after 2004 there were issues with them. This is when the coalition they had built began to fail.

Another article about the fiscal conservatives bucking the trend after 2004...

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/050317

The reality is that they were a faction that sought change within the party and ignoring them brought down a coalition that took many years to form in the Congress and helped to bring about the D majority in the end. Bush was not a fiscal conservative, and Obama certainly isn't. We haven't had one of those in power for a long time.

PostmodernProphet
08-25-2009, 08:30 AM
I love how they are trying to say that America's most conservative president ever was not a real conservative not that the conservative agenda failed miserably!


Ha...... Love it!
I recall when Bush was first put forward as a presidential candidate, the primary talking points were his appeal to moderates and his bipartisan support in Texas.....

Damocles
08-25-2009, 08:32 AM
No that was merely the failure of conservatism.
Seriously politically naive. I am not kidding a bit. This is something I'd expect from a Desh or somebody else who has no thought other than for party, it is silly to pretend that a victory this time means conservatism is "dead" or that the R party will never again hold a majority. Neither side will ever be permanently in the minority, history doesn't support it.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 08:33 AM
Again Damo, is this allowed here?

I edited the posts so that you could stop crying.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:35 AM
Seriously politically naive. I am not kidding a bit. This is something I'd expect from a Desh or somebody else who has no thought other than for party, it is silly to pretend that a victory this time means conservatism is "dead" or that the R party will never again hold a majority. It's plain idiotic if you look into history.

I do not pretend for a second that the Republican party is dead. It is dead as we knew it in 2008, and I believe almost everyone is glad about that. I hope they come back as real fiscal conservatives.

I belive that the Republicans will again soon hold a majority. I belive that "fiscal conservatism" as defined by Bush and his followers... is dead and will remain dead until enough people forget, or a wedge issue is again effectivly used again to get someone like him into office...

Again, was it within the rules of this forum for superfreak to call me an idiot, twice?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:36 AM
I edited the posts so that you could stop crying.

I did not make up the rules, I simply ask that if I am obeying them, everyone obey's!

DamnYankee
08-25-2009, 08:37 AM
it's early in the day but he's taking a very large lead. Insurmountable.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:38 AM
You truly are an idiot. What 'conservative' agenda failed? What failed was the government (both parties) interfering with regulations established to protect against exactly the scenario that played out. The removal of Glass Steagall (by both parties), the pressure from the government on banks to loan money when they previously would not have all in the name of 'more people own homes than ever before' were both a huge part of what went wrong.

This was not a conservative agenda... it was moronic politicians trying to play God. (this is not to say politicians were solely responsible, as discussed before, there is plenty of blame to go around)

You failed to edit this one!

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:38 AM
I do not pretend for a second that the Republican party is dead. It is dead as we knew it in 2008, and I believe almost everyone is glad about that. I hope they come back as real fiscal conservatives.

I belive that the Republicans will again soon hold a majority. I belive that "fiscal conservatism" as defined by Bush and his followers... is dead and will remain dead until enough people forget, or a wedge issue is again effectivly used again to get someone like him into office...

Again, was it within the rules of this forum for superfreak to call me an idiot, twice?

Ok, we can play your game. I too hope 'fiscal conservatism' as defined by Bush is dead. 'Fiscal conservatism' as defined by Bush meant spending as much money as possible.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:39 AM
This again shows your ignorance. That is NOT what a fiscal conservative believes you moron. While decreases in taxation do increase revenues in the short term, you have to have spending cuts to go along with the tax cuts for them to be sustainable for the long term.

Ohhh, and this one!

Damocles
08-25-2009, 08:39 AM
I did not make up the rules, I simply ask that if I am obeying them, everyone obey's!
You have to report the posts. Sometimes I don't see everything in a thread. Remember the insults have to be direct calling you something, not an idea something.

You are a hatless dog owner...

That idea is as listless as a hatless dog...

One may be an insult, the other speaks to the idea.

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:39 AM
Insurmountable.

At this point it sure looks like it.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:40 AM
Ok, we can play your game. I too hope 'fiscal conservatism' as defined by Bush is dead. 'Fiscal conservatism' as defined by Bush meant spending as much money as possible.

What percentage of "fiscal conservatives" voted for and supported Bush two times for president of the United States of America?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:41 AM
You have to report the posts. Sometimes I don't see everything in a thread. Remember the insults have to be direct calling you something, not an idea something.

You are a hatless dog owner...

That idea is as listless as a hatless dog...

One may be an insult, the other speaks to the idea.

So does calling me an idiot or a moron count? and I am reporting them right here!

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:41 AM
You have to report the posts. Sometimes I don't see everything in a thread. Remember the insults have to be direct calling you something, not an idea something.

You are a hatless dog owner...

That idea is as listless as a hatless dog...

One may be an insult, the other speaks to the idea.

No, on this thread Superfreak rightly called him an idiot and a moron and both were deserved. He's not as dumb as he's playing right now.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:42 AM
How about saying "You truely are an idiot" is that against the rules? Is that direct enough?

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:43 AM
What percentage of "fiscal conservatives" voted for and supported Bush two times for president of the United States of America?

Dude, I'm done with your game.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:43 AM
Dude, I'm done with your game.

Funny, when I bring up a good point... you call it a game and leave.

Damocles
08-25-2009, 08:44 AM
So does calling me an idiot or a moron count? and I am reporting them right here!
Again, report the post otherwise it is moot.

DamnYankee
08-25-2009, 08:45 AM
So does calling me an idiot or a moron count? and I am reporting them right here! 'Waaaa- I'm a victim'. Pppffffttt...

Damocles
08-25-2009, 08:45 AM
Funny, when I bring up a good point... you call it a game and leave.
Your point is not good it is silly and you continue to move the goal posts. We even showed how Bush's proposed budgets were changed by action directly from the fiscal conservatives in Congress. (At least I did, I posted two articles showing examples of how the fiscal conservatives thwarted portions of Bush's plans.)

Fiscal conservatives, such as myself, have consistently criticized Bush for his fiscal stupidity. Starting from the pill bill, and continuing for 8 years. Pretending that voting for somebody like Obama would be better is sheer disingenuity at its best.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:45 AM
Again, report the post otherwise it is moot.

I am reporting it!!! How else am I to report it... You want me to fill out a form in triplicate?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:47 AM
Your point is not good it is silly and you continue to move the goal posts. We even showed how Bush's proposed budgets were changed by action directly from the fiscal conservatives in Congress.

Fiscal conservatives, such as myself, have consistently criticized Bush for his fiscal stupidity.

I asked to be shown where a "fiscal conservative" had voted against one of Bush's spending bills... Is that silly? The fact that you cant illistrates my point.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:48 AM
Your point is not good it is silly and you continue to move the goal posts. We even showed how Bush's proposed budgets were changed by action directly from the fiscal conservatives in Congress.

Fiscal conservatives, such as myself, have consistently criticized Bush for his fiscal stupidity. Starting from the pill bill, and continuing for 8 years. Pretending that voting for somebody like Obama would be better is sheer disingenuity at its best.

Now see, you made an argument and an illistration of what you thought was silly about my post... you did not just call me silly and threaten to leave. I respect that!

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:49 AM
Funny, when I bring up a good point... you call it a game and leave.

No Jarod, like I said you are purposefully being obtuse. You are playing dumb. That is not a real argument/debate. If you want to have a real discussion I'd be glad to have one with you. I'm a partisan but I have no problem calling out areas where Republicans fail, especially this one in the fiscal arena. But a real discussion is not your goal and its quite obvious to more than just me. It is very transparent. So therefore I choose not to play your game.

Damocles
08-25-2009, 08:49 AM
I am reporting it!!! How else am I to report it... You want me to fill out a form in triplicate?
Click the little scales at the top of the post and report it. Whining about it in the thread is not reporting the post.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:51 AM
Click the little scales at the top of the post and report it. Whining about it in the thread is not reporting the post.

geeeesh...Would you really make it this hard were it me calling superfreak a moron?

cawacko
08-25-2009, 08:57 AM
Superfreak is a moron!

Jarod
08-25-2009, 08:59 AM
Superfreak is a moron!

I do not agree, he behaves that way sometimes with his name calling, childish insults, and refusal to follow a simple argument, but he is intelegent.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 09:00 AM
This again shows your ignorance. That is NOT what a fiscal conservative believes you <bad word>. While decreases in taxation do increase revenues in the short term, you have to have spending cuts to go along with the tax cuts for them to be sustainable for the long term.

This is so silly, so I can call anyone names I want, if they report it, it merely gets replaced with "bad word".

Damocles
08-25-2009, 09:01 AM
geeeesh...Would you really make it this hard were it me calling superfreak a moron?
If he wouldn't listen then, yes. It isn't making it hard, it is simply making it so you know how to bring it to our attention in the future. I absolutely do not have the time to read every post and search for insults. I'll also miss them while reading because it is nearly impossible to "offend" me.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 09:01 AM
"Superfreak you are a <bad word>"

Is worse than

"Superfreak you are a moron!"

Damocles
08-25-2009, 09:02 AM
This is so silly, so I can call anyone names I want, if they report it, it merely gets replaced with "bad word".
Pretty much. Or deleted. The rules are rather specific about certain words though, some may get you banned from the APP area for a period of time.

What were you expecting?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 09:02 AM
If he wouldn't listen then, yes. It isn't making it hard, it is simply making it so you know how to bring it to our attention in the future. I absolutely do not have the time to read every post and search for insults. I'll also miss them while reading because it is nearly impossible to "offend" me.

It is impossable to offend me also... but I thought this was a place to be above name calling.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 09:03 AM
Pretty much. Or deleted.

What were you expecting?

I dont know, I dont really care. I only post here because its where the traffic seems to be. I rarely call anyone names so it does not really matter to me.

Damocles
08-25-2009, 09:04 AM
Okay.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 09:04 AM
Maybe he should be publicly reminded of the rules?!?

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 09:13 AM
You failed to edit this one!

Sorry, I edited the two posts you brought to my attention. That one is now edited as well.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 09:17 AM
Maybe he should be publicly reminded of the rules?!?

You <bad word> <bad word>. I already edited the two you brought to my attention and then the third once you brought it to my attention. Yet you still persist with your pathetic attempt to make this an issue? <bad word>.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 09:18 AM
I dont know, I dont really care. I only post here because its where the traffic seems to be. I rarely call anyone names so it does not really matter to me.

LOL... you don't care? yeah... you have certainly proven that. Seriously... people actually hire you?

Topspin
08-25-2009, 09:22 AM
I didn't know Jarod was gay until this post.
Ya'll stop picking on him.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 09:32 AM
"Superfreak you are a <bad word>"

Is worse than

"Superfreak you are a moron!"

You need to edit this post. That is not allowed here.

Damocles
08-25-2009, 09:38 AM
:P

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 09:51 AM
"Superfreak you are a <bad word>"

Is worse than

"Superfreak you are a moron!"

:tantrum: YOU STILL HAVEN'T EDITED THE POST JAROD!!! DON'T MAKE ME TELL DAMO ON YOU :tantrum:

Mott the Hoople
08-25-2009, 09:56 AM
From 2001 to 2009 private sector job growth in the previous ten years had all but disappeared from 25% in the previous period to 2% at the start of 2009 - Bureau of Labor Statistics
By the way, for comparison, the number was about 25% when Carter left office, down to 17% during Reagan's first term, rising to 30% in 85 then declining to 24% to begin bush I. Though Reagan had reached 30% during his tenure, he left office with job creation at appr. the same rate as when Carter left officeKeep in mind that the "Stagflation" period of high unemployment and inflation began during the Nixon administration and carried over through Ford into the Carter administration. It was Carter who appointed Paul Voelker to the Fed with a mandate to bring inflation under control that actually brought runaway inflation under control. Carter also paid a very high political price for making that decision.

Mott the Hoople
08-25-2009, 09:58 AM
Unemeplyment not as rampant as now.
And artificially low interest rates helped this recession to happen.Sorry USC but that's just not true.

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 10:08 AM
Sorry USC but that's just not true.

I am at least correct on the artificially low interest rates helping to create this recession. Would we have had a housing bubble at 19% mortgage rates? Credit cards maxxed out at a 25-30% interest rates? Home equity loans at 19%?
People would have been a bit more restrained on debt.


I may be off a little on the unemployment rates, but I an dead on on the low interest rates contributing to the current problems.

Mott the Hoople
08-25-2009, 10:17 AM
Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan.Actually Carter took a big political hit for that by doing the right thing. He gave Paul Voelker a mandate to control Fed monetary policy. Voelker promptly implemented a tight monetary policy at the Fed which worked but not before we went through a phase where the economy slowed down and inflation jumped to a national record. Carter paid a high price politicaly for that phase but ultimately Voelkers Fed policy worked and brought inflation under control with net growth in the economy. By then though it was to late for Carter. Nevert the less, it is Carter who deserves the credit for bringing an end to the 1970's era of stagflation.

It's really rather interesting to compare Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush in terms of their abilitites. Carter was a very capable administrator but was politically inept (note his gang from Georgia was a bad idea) and niave. George W. Bush on the other hand was politically brilliant but the most incompetant administrator to sit in the White House since Warren G. Harding. Rather like polar opposite of each other. Note that their historical rankings are both very close to each other (both are viewed as failed presidents). Then there's Nixon, who despite being a brilliant political operative and a visionary on foreign policy and an extremely talented administrator still managed to destroy his presidency. I don't know if you can say that Nixon was a worse President then Carter or Bush but he was certainly more imorral then either.

evince
08-25-2009, 10:20 AM
Bush was far worse than Nixon.

Topspin
08-25-2009, 10:29 AM
Nobody was worse than Nixon, unless your from the middle east, like a little regulation, or are anti-war.
Ok Bush was worse

Mott the Hoople
08-25-2009, 11:14 AM
Bush was far worse than Nixon.That's highly debatable. Bush may have been incompetent and maybe even corrupt but he was not the immoral son of a bitch to the degree Nixon was. No US President has ever lacked morality to the degree Nixon did. Nixon certainly had some great accomplishments but that was more then made up for by his personal demons. Though to bolster your argument, Professional historians do rate Bush as worse than Nixon but not by much. Bush is ranked as 7th worst and Nixon is rated as 10 worst. There is still hope for Bush's legacy to be reformed. If Iraq turns into a prosperous and stable Jeffersonian democracy in the middle east, then Bush's legacy would rehabilitate and he would move substantially up the rankings. Alternatively, if a national economic crisis occurs due to our growing national debt then both Reagan's and Bush's legacy's will plummet.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 11:26 AM
That's highly debatable. Bush may have been incompetent and maybe even corrupt but he was not the immoral son of a bitch to the degree Nixon was. No US President has ever lacked morality to the degree Nixon did. Nixon certainly had some great accomplishments but that was more then made up for by his personal demons. Though to bolster your argument, Professional historians do rate Bush as worse than Nixon but not by much. Bush is ranked as 7th worst and Nixon is rated as 10 worst. There is still hope for Bush's legacy to be reformed. If Iraq turns into a prosperous and stable Jeffersonian democracy in the middle east, then Bush's legacy would rehabilitate and he would move substantially up the rankings. Alternatively, if a national economic crisis occurs due to our growing national debt then both Reagan's and Bush's legacy's will plummet.

By that standard then Clinton's must as well. Clinton raised the national debt in each year of his eight in office. Despite having the benefit of peacetime and the internet/telecom/tech boom leading a great economy. $1.6 trillion he added to the debt. In a peaceful booming economy.

Reagan's spending was done during the cold war and a large portion of that spending went to that endeavor. Papa Bush was far worse than Reagan in terms of spending. lil' Bush will always be low in my opinion due to his insane levels of debt.

That said, Nixon was worse than lil Bush. Carter is on par with lil Bush. Though I do give him credit for appointing Volcker. (see correct spelling of his name:) )

evince
08-25-2009, 11:30 AM
Bush is the worst.

His policies fucked up everything that he touched.

Nixon wasnt great but he was no Bush

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 11:32 AM
Bush is the worst.

His policies fucked up everything that he touched.

Nixon wasnt great but he was no Bush

yes, we get it... you hate bush.... thanks for the scoop.

evince
08-25-2009, 11:34 AM
That's highly debatable. Bush may have been incompetent and maybe even corrupt but he was not the immoral son of a bitch to the degree Nixon was. No US President has ever lacked morality to the degree Nixon did. Nixon certainly had some great accomplishments but that was more then made up for by his personal demons. Though to bolster your argument, Professional historians do rate Bush as worse than Nixon but not by much. Bush is ranked as 7th worst and Nixon is rated as 10 worst. There is still hope for Bush's legacy to be reformed. If Iraq turns into a prosperous and stable Jeffersonian democracy in the middle east, then Bush's legacy would rehabilitate and he would move substantially up the rankings. Alternatively, if a national economic crisis occurs due to our growing national debt then both Reagan's and Bush's legacy's will plummet.


Bush will sink in the light of history.

The endless ass covering of the people associated with him trying to show they tried to fight the corruption will continue.

When they are dead and the papers come out his placement will be sealed.

Bush was a patsi to a large extent but he was a lying dishonest patsi who is not much better than the brighter people like Cheney and Ascroft who pulled the strings.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 11:54 AM
You need to edit this post. That is not allowed here.

Achually it is, read the rules.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 11:55 AM
:tantrum: YOU STILL HAVEN'T EDITED THE POST JAROD!!! DON'T MAKE ME TELL DAMO ON YOU :tantrum:

Please report it, what I wrote is not against the rules... Report it to Damo, if he has any integrity he will not edit it...

Minister of Truth
08-25-2009, 11:57 AM
No US President has ever lacked morality to the degree Nixon did.

Jackson? Jefferson? I consider these two morally bankrupt...

Jarod
08-25-2009, 12:01 PM
Luckily I dont use name calling as a debate tactict. If I did however I would post where that is allowed.

I personally see name calling as a desperation that illistrates a weakness in ones argument. Sometimes its a desperation other times its a filler to avoid real discussion that one knows would lead them to have to admit a mistake.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 12:03 PM
Luckily I dont use name calling as a debate tactict. If I did however I would post where that is allowed.

I personally see name calling as a desperation that illistrates a weakness in ones argument. Sometimes its a desperation other times its a filler to avoid real discussion that one knows would lead them to have to admit a mistake.

or perhaps sometimes it is because the person really is a friggin idiot and needs to be reminded of it.

Mott the Hoople
08-25-2009, 12:05 PM
By that standard then Clinton's must as well. Clinton raised the national debt in each year of his eight in office. Despite having the benefit of peacetime and the internet/telecom/tech boom leading a great economy. $1.6 trillion he added to the debt. In a peaceful booming economy.

Reagan's spending was done during the cold war and a large portion of that spending went to that endeavor. Papa Bush was far worse than Reagan in terms of spending. lil' Bush will always be low in my opinion due to his insane levels of debt.

That said, Nixon was worse than lil Bush. Carter is on par with lil Bush. Though I do give him credit for appointing Volcker. (see correct spelling of his name:) )
Hardly. Clinton inherited a debt level from previous administrations that were at very high levels as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced that ratio each year he was in office until he turned defecits into a surplus his last year in office. So Clinton effectively reversed that trend.

Also, claiming Reagan increased spending to pay for the cold war is a red herring. First, previous administrations had affectively fought and contained Soviet expansionism with out resorting to deficit spending. Second, the area of spending that caused the deficits under Reagan was not for defence but was in entitlement programs. In other words domestic spending. In fact, of the 10 trillion dollars in natonal debt we've accrued since 1950 till the end of the second Bush administration 85% of that debt occurred under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II with 70% of that total debt occuring under Reagan and BushII. So there's no mistaking about who is responsible for those large levels of debt and if we suffer serious economic consequences as a result both Reagan and Bush II will bear the brunt of the blame.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 12:07 PM
or perhaps sometimes it is because the person really is a friggin idiot and needs to be reminded of it.

I disagree. Those who are idiots usually are not helped by being reminded of that condition.

Name calling is childish and pittafull. It illistrates the limits of the mind of the name caller.

evince
08-25-2009, 12:09 PM
Oh lighten up you asswinks.

cawacko
08-25-2009, 12:09 PM
Hardly. Clinton inherited a debt level from previous administrations that were at very high levels as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced that ratio each year he was in office until he turned defecits into a surplus his last year in office. So Clinton effectively reversed that trend.

Also, claiming Reagan increased spending to pay for the cold war is a red herring. First, previous administrations had affectively fought and contained Soviet expansionism with out resorting to deficit spending. Second, the area of spending that caused the deficits under Reagan was not for defence but was in entitlement programs. In other words domestic spending. In fact, of the 10 trillion dollars in natonal debt we've accrued since 1950 till the end of the second Bush administration 85% of that debt occurred under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II with 70% of that total debt occuring under Reagan and BushII. So there's no mistaking about who is responsible for those large levels of debt and if we suffer serious economic consequences as a result both Reagan and Bush II will bear the brunt of the blame.

Unless I'm misreading this you are saying that Reagan spent the most money not on defense but on entitlement spending? Isn't the usual line that Reagan tried to 'starve the beast' i.e. entitlement programs while spending so much money on the military?

Damocles
08-25-2009, 12:13 PM
Geebus... Let's not make me move the thread.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 12:16 PM
Geebus... Let's not make me move the thread.

What for?

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 12:16 PM
Hardly. Clinton inherited a debt level from previous administrations that were at very high levels as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced that ratio each year he was in office until he turned defecits into a surplus his last year in office. So Clinton effectively reversed that trend.

Also, claiming Reagan increased spending to pay for the cold war is a red herring. First, previous administrations had affectively fought and contained Soviet expansionism with out resorting to deficit spending. Second, the area of spending that caused the deficits under Reagan was not for defence but was in entitlement programs. In other words domestic spending. In fact, of the 10 trillion dollars in natonal debt we've accrued since 1950 till the end of the second Bush administration 85% of that debt occurred under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II with 70% of that total debt occuring under Reagan and BushII. So there's no mistaking about who is responsible for those large levels of debt and if we suffer serious economic consequences as a result both Reagan and Bush II will bear the brunt of the blame.

Inncorrect. Clinton didn't reduce/reverse anything. GDP simply grew at a faster pace than the difference between spending and revenues. Each and every year the national debt went up. That has been the case since 1960. So enough with the "BUDGET" surplus fairy tale. At the end of the year, more money was spent than was taken in. Period. In Peacetime, during an economic boom the idiots in DC still raised our debt every friggin year. Bottom line, during Clinton's 8 years the national debt increased by 1.6 trillion. The same as under Reagan in dollar terms, though Reagan increased it more in terms of percentages.

Nice Cherry picking of the stats. You can say the same thing with Clinton and Bush Jr. that you just said with Reagan. In dollar terms he was right on par with Reagan. When you factor in that prior to 1960 (so an entire decade of your stats) the politicians in DC tried to actually avoid deficit spending as much as possible. Next, you are not factoring in the compounding effect of the debt. Presidents prior to Reagan did not have to deal with the same levels of interest burden that Reagan did. Likewise, Reagan did not have to deal with the same burdens Clinton did.... etc...

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 12:18 PM
Unless I'm misreading this you are saying that Reagan spent the most money not on defense but on entitlement spending? Isn't the usual line that Reagan tried to 'starve the beast' i.e. entitlement programs while spending so much money on the military?

No, Reagan did indeed spend a lot on Johnsons entitlement programs...

cawacko
08-25-2009, 12:20 PM
No, Reagan did indeed spend a lot on Johnsons entitlement programs...

Ok, so why all the complaints that he tried to 'starve the beast' and wanted to kill off domestic programs etc?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 12:20 PM
No, Reagan did indeed spend a lot on Johnsons entitlement programs...

Funny, Reagan's deficate spending was Johnson's fault... But Obama is fully to blame for his!

Damocles
08-25-2009, 12:22 PM
What for?
Whining back and forth about whether some insult followed the "rules" isn't exactly material for APP.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 12:25 PM
Whining back and forth about whether some insult followed the "rules" isn't exactly material for APP.

Im not whining, just discussing.

I dont care where the thread is, but I do belive we should have a forum where the rules can be discussed. If Supercandy is going to publicly say I broke rules, Id like to have the opertunity to challange that. As you know I broke no rules... He did, I have not!

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 12:26 PM
Funny, Reagan's deficate spending was Johnson's fault... But Obama is fully to blame for his!

I did not say that. Only an idiot would interpret what I stated that way. I clearly stated that Reagan's deficits were largely due to his increases in defense spending. I acknowledged Motts point that Reagan also spent a lot on entitlements. But those were more of fixed costs and thus it is the discretionary spending where Reagan added to the debt... not the entitlement programs already on the books.

Second, I never mentioned Obama in my post. Which means that is simply an idiotic attempt to build a strawman by a less than intelligent individual.

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 12:26 PM
Ok, so why all the complaints that he tried to 'starve the beast' and wanted to kill off domestic programs etc?

Because they want to have it both ways???

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 12:27 PM
Whining back and forth about whether some insult followed the "rules" isn't exactly material for APP.

I wasn't whining... I was clearly MOCKING... :D

Jarod
08-25-2009, 12:29 PM
I didn't know Jarod was gay until this post.
Ya'll stop picking on him.

Is this a slur based on sexual orientation?

cawacko
08-25-2009, 12:29 PM
Funny, Reagan's deficate spending was Johnson's fault... But Obama is fully to blame for his!

I can only shake my head at that response. If you didn't know better I'd feel sorry for you but I know you know better. You are getting the uscitizen disease of purposefully playing dumb.

Jarod
08-25-2009, 12:30 PM
I did not say that. Only an idiot would interpret what I stated that way. I clearly stated that Reagan's deficits were largely due to his increases in defense spending. I acknowledged Motts point that Reagan also spent a lot on entitlements. But those were more of fixed costs and thus it is the discretionary spending where Reagan added to the debt... not the entitlement programs already on the books.

Second, I never mentioned Obama in my post. Which means that is simply an idiotic attempt to build a strawman by a less than intelligent individual.

You have never complained about the economic situation being President Obama's fault?

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 12:34 PM
You have never complained about the economic situation being President Obama's fault?

No, my mentally challenged friend, I have stated what the cause of this economic downturn was many times. While some of Obama's policies (or proposed policies) will make the situation worse in my opinion, this situation is not his fault. As I have stated many times, it was the result of both parties f'in with the system that was designed to prevent this exact scenario from occurring.

That said, to be clear challenging Obama's current policies does not mean he is to blame for everything that has occurred.

cawacko
08-25-2009, 12:35 PM
You have never complained about the economic situation being President Obama's fault?

God I wish I could post a picture here...

It says FACEPALM with a guy holding his hand to his forehead and it says

'Beacause expressing how dumb that was in words just doesn't work'

PostmodernProphet
08-25-2009, 12:37 PM
Funny, Reagan's deficate spending was Johnson's fault... But Obama is fully to blame for his!

speaking of deficit spending....as I recall, the national debt as of January, 2009 was between $11 and $12trillion.....since then, according to the CBO's announcement today, it has increased another $7trillion plus over the next ten years.....and that's only calculating the money for bills already passed.....quite an accomplishment....Obama is more than half way to out "deficiting" every other president we have ever had combined.....and he's only been on the job for eight months......

Mott the Hoople
08-25-2009, 12:47 PM
Unless I'm misreading this you are saying that Reagan spent the most money not on defense but on entitlement spending? Isn't the usual line that Reagan tried to 'starve the beast' i.e. entitlement programs while spending so much money on the military?
That's the party line. It's just not the reality though. Defense spending during the 50's and 60's averaged around 9% of GDP. Under Reagan it was about 6% of GDP. IN fact, because of increases in domestic spending, the DOD's percent share of the federal outlay is less than half of what it was during it's peak. As a percent of the Federal budget Reagan essentially maintained defense spending levels at or below the spending levels of the 1970's (around 6%). The massive debts that occured durring Reagan's term was predominantly due to gigantic increase in spending on dometstic programs, particularly popular entitlement programs. Reagan hardly starved the beast. The reality is he fed it with both hands.

cawacko
08-25-2009, 12:50 PM
That's the party line. It's just not the reality though. Defense spending during the 50's and 60's averaged around 9% of GDP. Under Reagan it was about 6% of GDP. IN fact, because of increases in domestic spending, the DOD's percent share of the federal outlay is less than half of what it was during it's peak. As a percent of the Federal budget Reagan essentially maintained defense spending levels at or below the spending levels of the 1970's (around 6%). The massive debts that occured durring Reagan's term was predominantly due to gigantic increase in spending on dometstic programs, particularly popular entitlement programs. Reagan hardly starved the beast. The reality is he fed it with both hands.

If that is the case then why is the Dem party line the opposite?

Cancel 2016.2
08-25-2009, 12:52 PM
If that is the case then why is the Dem party line the opposite?

Because most people do not look at it in terms of % of GDP like Mott is doing.

Mott the Hoople
08-25-2009, 12:53 PM
If that is the case then why is the Dem party line the opposite?
In what respect?

Jarod
08-25-2009, 12:54 PM
No, my mentally challenged friend, I have stated what the cause of this economic downturn was many times. While some of Obama's policies (or proposed policies) will make the situation worse in my opinion, this situation is not his fault. As I have stated many times, it was the result of both parties f'in with the system that was designed to prevent this exact scenario from occurring.

That said, to be clear challenging Obama's current policies does not mean he is to blame for everything that has occurred.

True, if thats the case I have unfairly lumped you into a catagory in which you did not belong. For that I appologise.

cawacko
08-25-2009, 01:01 PM
In what respect? That Reagan spent massive amounts on the military and not on domestic programs.

Topspin
08-25-2009, 02:18 PM
Is this a slur based on sexual orientation?

no it's a slurr based on being a male without a spine.

Mott the Hoople
08-25-2009, 02:22 PM
That Reagan spent massive amounts on the military and not on domestic programs.
Politicing. That and they probably wanted to spend even more on dometstic programs other than entitlements as well as expanding entitlements.

DamnYankee
08-25-2009, 02:41 PM
speaking of deficit spending....as I recall, the national debt as of January, 2009 was between $11 and $12trillion.....since then, according to the CBO's announcement today, it has increased another $7trillion plus over the next ten years.....and that's only calculating the money for bills already passed.....quite an accomplishment....Obama is more than half way to out "deficiting" every other president we have ever had combined.....and he's only been on the job for eight months...... Yet these same liberals who rightly skewered Bush for increasing the deficit are strangely silent now...

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 05:00 PM
Yet these same liberals who rightly skewered Bush for increasing the deficit are strangely silent now...

That is still a much slower rate of growth than under GWB.
If it was at the GWB rate it would got to 24 trillion in 8 years.
And Bush only had one almost recession during his presidency. Remember the current one is Obama's :D
The economy was fantastic, etc. So why double the national debt?

DamnYankee
08-25-2009, 06:09 PM
That is still a much slower rate of growth than under GWB.
If it was at the GWB rate it would got to 24 trillion in 8 years.
And Bush only had one almost recession during his presidency. Remember the current one is Obama's :D
The economy was fantastic, etc. So why double the national debt? And your source for this 24 trillion figure is...?

Now the Bush economy was "fantastic", and before y'all liberals were crying that it was about to go into a recession. LOL

Cancel 2018. 3
08-25-2009, 06:24 PM
its funny.....when the economy was kickin, real estate etc....under bush, it had nothing to do with bush....but the real market goes down and other parts of the economy....and its all bush's fault :rolleyes:

PostmodernProphet
08-25-2009, 06:32 PM
That is still a much slower rate of growth than under GWB.
If it was at the GWB rate it would got to 24 trillion in 8 years.
And Bush only had one almost recession during his presidency. Remember the current one is Obama's :D
The economy was fantastic, etc. So why double the national debt?

how do you figure?....Obama has built up a deficit of $7-8trillion in just eight months....Bush's deficit was under $5trillion after 8 years.....

PostmodernProphet
08-25-2009, 06:39 PM
The economy was fantastic, etc.

I recall during the election, it was the "worst economy in a decade"....

cawacko
08-25-2009, 06:42 PM
And your source for this 24 trillion figure is...?

Now the Bush economy was "fantastic", and before y'all liberals were crying that it was about to go into a recession. LOL

It also pretty funny that the dot com bust and 9/11 attacks = almost recession.

Damocles
08-25-2009, 06:44 PM
I recall during the election, it was the "worst economy in a decade"....
During the 2004 election, and pretty much through his Presidency we were treated to the "worst economy" song and dance.

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 07:02 PM
It also pretty funny that the dot com bust and 9/11 attacks = almost recession.

Have you read about the revised figures for the dot com "recession"?

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 07:04 PM
During the 2004 election, and pretty much through his Presidency we were treated to the "worst economy" song and dance.

And we on the other side were treated to everything is fine from your side.
Job and wage growth was dismal. Avg income looked good because a few made really big bucks which skewed the results massively.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-25-2009, 07:52 PM
During the 2004 election, and pretty much through his Presidency we were treated to the "worst economy" song and dance.

yep...he never was mentioned in a positive way, no matter what

PostmodernProphet
08-25-2009, 07:59 PM
Job and wage growth was dismal. Avg income looked good because a few made really big bucks which skewed the results massively.



The economy was fantastic, etc. So why double the national debt?

/lol.......consistent much?.....

belme1201
08-25-2009, 09:05 PM
By that standard then Clinton's must as well. Clinton raised the national debt in each year of his eight in office. Despite having the benefit of peacetime and the internet/telecom/tech boom leading a great economy. $1.6 trillion he added to the debt. In a peaceful booming economy.

Reagan's spending was done during the cold war and a large portion of that spending went to that endeavor. Papa Bush was far worse than Reagan in terms of spending. lil' Bush will always be low in my opinion due to his insane levels of debt.

That said, Nixon was worse than lil Bush. Carter is on par with lil Bush. Though I do give him credit for appointing Volcker. (see correct spelling of his name:) )

The debt under Clinton was from the inherited budgets of the bushI administration.
He passed his first budget, which not a single Republican voted for amid the shrill hysteria similar to what we are hearing today, and began the decline of the deficit to the point of surplus when he left office.

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 09:06 PM
/lol.......consistent much?.....

Out of context much?

belme1201
08-25-2009, 09:12 PM
During the 2004 election, and pretty much through his Presidency we were treated to the "worst economy" song and dance.

I seem to remember the 2004 election being about Iraq and the deficit which the Republicans in those days were saying was unimportant. The criticisms about the economy were about a slow recovery and poor job creation, the usual result of Supply Side Economics.

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 09:15 PM
I seem to remember the 2004 election being about Iraq and the deficit which the Republicans in those days were saying was unimportant. The criticisms about the economy were about a slow recovery and poor job creation, the usual result of Supply Side Economics.

The 2004 election was about fear of terrorism, and would you want a mission accompolished guy or a swift boater?

belme1201
08-25-2009, 09:21 PM
yep...he never was mentioned in a positive way, no matter what


Sound familiar? I guess that's just politics, unless you want my emotions toward bush to include pity, in which case please send paper towels and a violin.

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 09:25 PM
Ohh I freely and proudly proclaim never having talked about Bush in a positive way.

What about all you on the right that only praised him a few years ago?

Still proud of that?

belme1201
08-25-2009, 09:29 PM
The 2004 election was about fear of terrorism, and would you want a mission accompolished guy or a swift boater?



Absolutely correct, funny how one blots out the evil.

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 09:33 PM
What was that other thread about the WH trying to get homeland security to bump up the threat level to polka dot or somesuch right before the election?

that of course had to do with the economy.

belme1201
08-25-2009, 09:36 PM
yep...he never was mentioned in a positive way, no matter what

I should add that the same holds true if you want to include support from his own. On the other board it was asked time after time to silence us and list the positive accomplishments of the bush administration, the silence was deafening.

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 09:37 PM
Seems like I remember Bush doing one good thing. But I forget what it was.

tinfoil
08-25-2009, 10:15 PM
Have you read about the revised figures for the dot com "recession"?

LOL you're the lamest old geezer internet hero. You are a fucking idiot if you don't recall the jobless recovery propaganda. You're so dishonest. Typical liberal

belme1201
08-25-2009, 10:16 PM
Seems like I remember Bush doing one good thing. But I forget what it was.


He flew to Crawford on Jan 20?

uscitizen
08-25-2009, 10:18 PM
For example, most of us would agree that the slowdown in inflation in the 1980s (for which President Reagan is sometimes credited) was due to Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who was in fact appointed by President Carter. Moreover, the primary reason that Volcker was able to bring inflation down was his willingness to contribute to an economic recession in 1980, for which Carter was blamed. Perhaps the real error was allowing inflation to accelerate as much as it did prior to Volcker, for which much of the blame would logically go to Fed Chair Arthur Burns, appointed by President Nixon in 1970, and G. William Miller, Carter's pick in 1978. But even here there is a separate interesting question as to the contribution that bad real-time data may have made to those policy errors.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/08/carter-recession-and-natural-rate-of.html

belme1201
08-25-2009, 10:25 PM
LOL you're the lamest old geezer internet hero. You are a fucking idiot if you don't recall the jobless recovery propaganda. You're so dishonest. Typical liberal

The bush "recovery" did not produce enough jobs to cover the growing US population. Check statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. His unemployment numbers were never anywhere close to the low number passed on to him by Clinton and were growing until Jan 2009 when he passed the baton to Obama.

Damocles
08-25-2009, 10:34 PM
I seem to remember the 2004 election being about Iraq and the deficit which the Republicans in those days were saying was unimportant. The criticisms about the economy were about a slow recovery and poor job creation, the usual result of Supply Side Economics.
You have a short memory.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3913

Though uscit is right, idiots kept saying "More people own homes than ever before.."

Many here have mentioned that this was because the government was forcing mortgages for people who couldn't afford them, we even warned that a bubble was coming. It was a period of insanity fiscally, and the reason I wouldn't vote for Bush, along with undeclared nation-building wars...

belme1201
08-26-2009, 12:44 AM
You have a short memory.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3913

Though uscit is right, idiots kept saying "More people own homes than ever before.."

Many here have mentioned that this was because the government was forcing mortgages for people who couldn't afford them, we even warned that a bubble was coming. It was a period of insanity fiscally, and the reason I wouldn't vote for Bush, along with undeclared nation-building wars...

Although I would rather have heard it from someone other than Goldman, if Kerry compared the pre-2004 bush years to the Great Depression, he was wrong. I personally never heard it but it won't be the first time I haven't heard campaign hyperbole.
That said, Mr Goldman in the link did a convenient bit of twisting and turning such as comparing bush employment figures to Clinton's in 1996, 5 years before bush became president and not pointing to the fact that bush never was able to reach the low unemployment figures Clinton handed him on the day he became President. He also mentions productivity increases but fails to mention wages did not follow suit, great news for corporations, not so for workers..
In the period toward the end of the bush term Goldman's fiscal prognostications were so far off that he accepted a non-economic political job replacing Karen Hughs in her job? in the State Dept.
I didn't mention housing, but the Ownership Society was highlighted in the Goldman link as a positive thing.

PostmodernProphet
08-26-2009, 05:36 AM
Out of context much?

lol, you changed context in the space of two posts?.....

DamnYankee
08-26-2009, 06:54 AM
It also pretty funny that the dot com bust and 9/11 attacks = almost recession. And cutting taxes made the economy "fantastic" as viewed by liberals in 2009, shitty as hell as viewed by liberals then. LOL

Jarod
08-26-2009, 06:59 AM
And cutting taxes made the economy "fantastic" as viewed by liberals in 2009, shitty as hell as viewed by liberals then. LOL

Cutting taxes in a time of war, (unprecidented) was a huge mistake that helped put us here where we are today!

Topspin
08-26-2009, 07:30 AM
Cutting taxes in a time of war, (unprecidented) was a huge mistake that helped put us here where we are today!

It's hard to believe someone could be dumber on economics than USGED, but Jarod 2 degrees and your not close to what usged understands.

Jarod
08-26-2009, 07:38 AM
It's hard to believe someone could be dumber on economics than USGED, but Jarod 2 degrees and your not close to what usged understands.

Just because I dont belive what you do about economics does not mean that I am dumb about them. Plenty of very educated economists agree with me!

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 07:48 AM
The debt under Clinton was from the inherited budgets of the bushI administration.
He passed his first budget, which not a single Republican voted for amid the shrill hysteria similar to what we are hearing today, and began the decline of the deficit to the point of surplus when he left office.

Again with the ignorance. There was NO SURPLUS when Clinton left office. Each and every year, they outspent the revenue. This creates an ACTUAL DEFICIT and INCREASES our debt.

It is also ignorant to proclaim that Clintons first years of deficits are due to the previous administration. You might be able to make that claim for the first year, but what about the other SEVEN? Those are on him (and of course Congress).

Bonestorm
08-26-2009, 07:50 AM
Republican deficit hawks crack me up.

Topspin
08-26-2009, 07:51 AM
Just because I dont belive what you do about economics does not mean that I am dumb about them. Plenty of very educated economists agree with me!

I don't see anybody left or right that agrees with you. You do not listen to many economist at all.

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 08:02 AM
The bush "recovery" did not produce enough jobs to cover the growing US population. Check statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. His unemployment numbers were never anywhere close to the low number passed on to him by Clinton and were growing until Jan 2009 when he passed the baton to Obama.

WRONG again.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

Unemployment was sub 5% under Bush for all of 2006 and 2007 and the first couple of months of 2008.

yes, unemployment spiked during the first couple of years of Bush do the the dot com/tech/telecom bubbles bursting and the recession that resulted from that, but when the economy recovered, so did the employment numbers.

Same thing is occurring now.

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 08:09 AM
Republican deficit hawks crack me up.

What cracks me up is those who believe BUDGET surpluses = ACTUAL surpluses

That and the belief that the trillions in PROJECTED surpluses somehow disappeared overnight when Bush was elected rather than due to, oh I don't know... the RECESSION.

Jarod
08-26-2009, 08:37 AM
I don't see anybody left or right that agrees with you. You do not listen to many economist at all.

What specifically and Ill try to get you an economist who agrees with me.

belme1201
08-26-2009, 08:42 AM
Again with the ignorance. There was NO SURPLUS when Clinton left office. Each and every year, they outspent the revenue. This creates an ACTUAL DEFICIT and INCREASES our debt.

It is also ignorant to proclaim that Clintons first years of deficits are due to the previous administration. You might be able to make that claim for the first year, but what about the other SEVEN? Those are on him (and of course Congress).

Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Whatever system you use to calculate the deficit or surplus, using the SAME method, compare, without semantics, the Clinton numbers to the bush numbers.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, I made no claims about the deficit other than stating the fact that when he came to office the bush I budget was in effect until the first Clinton budget was adopted in '94 without a single GOP vote. Compare the results of that budget with bush Supply Side budgets. If job growth is a guage, the ball game ended a long time ago. The 10 year moving average in early 2001 was 23%, by the beginning of 2009 it had fallen to not quite 3%, 'nuf said? Can you name the last GOP President to present a balanced budget to Congress and when the GOP became deficit hawks? I seem to remember their din in the bush/Iraq years was deficits were either unimportant or irrelevent.

Bonestorm
08-26-2009, 08:50 AM
What cracks me up is those who believe BUDGET surpluses = ACTUAL surpluses

That and the belief that the trillions in PROJECTED surpluses somehow disappeared overnight when Bush was elected rather than due to, oh I don't know... the RECESSION.


What isn't even funny is those that talk about BUDGET surpluses and PROJECTED surpluses to support tax cuts that really amount to deficit spending AND revenue reductions while claiming to be concerned with the deficit.

Now, tell me again what your position was on the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

tinfoil
08-26-2009, 08:53 AM
What isn't even funny is those that talk about BUDGET surpluses and PROJECTED surpluses to support tax cuts that really amount to deficit spending AND revenue reductions while claiming to be concerned with the deficit.

Now, tell me again what your position was on the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.


they spurred economic activity that reduced unemployment to less than 5%

belme1201
08-26-2009, 08:57 AM
What cracks me up is those who believe BUDGET surpluses = ACTUAL surpluses

That and the belief that the trillions in PROJECTED surpluses somehow disappeared overnight when Bush was elected rather than due to, oh I don't know... the RECESSION.

Not the, minimal in comparison, "RECESSION" but, oh I don't know.... tax cuts in a time of war? $830 billion and climbing wasted at last count. Then let's throw in another $3/4 trillion+ in emergency funds just for kicks.

belme1201
08-26-2009, 09:05 AM
they spurred economic activity that reduced unemployment to less than 5%

Sorry, Clinton's unemployment was at 3.4% when bush took office, 5% is an INCREASE of about 30%. Some spur.

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 09:20 AM
Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Whatever system you use to calculate the deficit or surplus, using the SAME method, compare, without semantics, the Clinton numbers to the bush numbers.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, I made no claims about the deficit other than stating the fact that when he came to office the bush I budget was in effect until the first Clinton budget was adopted in '94 without a single GOP vote. Compare the results of that budget with bush Supply Side budgets. If job growth is a guage, the ball game ended a long time ago. The 10 year moving average in early 2001 was 23%, by the beginning of 2009 it had fallen to not quite 3%, 'nuf said? Can you name the last GOP President to present a balanced budget to Congress and when the GOP became deficit hawks? I seem to remember their din in the bush/Iraq years was deficits were either unimportant or irrelevent.

1) My point was not that Bush was better. So comparing the two is irrelevant to my post. My post was to point out that you are incorrect in stating that Clinton had surpluses when he left. He most certainly did NOT.


2) Looking at job growth for the decade preceding 2001 is disingenuous. The 1990's job growth was due to the boom in tech/telecom/internet. That created massive new opportunities. You are thus comparing a boom cycle to a recessionary one. They do not compare.

3) Congress passes the budgets. It was a combination of the REP led Congress and Clinton that created the balanced budgets of the late 1990's. Again, they are JUST BUDGETS. It is the ACTUAL results that matter.

4) Can you name the last President to preside over a fiscal year in which we actually LOWERED our nations debt year over year?

Topspin
08-26-2009, 09:21 AM
Robert Reich is probably the biggest lefty economist of all, even he knows tax cuts work.
He's for stimulus big time and argues against the false all or nothing tax cut card the turbo-libs flaunt too much.
When pinned down he knows what we know, taxed at 10% not 20% the average Joe spends more.

Mott the Hoople
08-26-2009, 09:27 AM
It's hard to believe someone could be dumber on economics than USGED, but Jarod 2 degrees and your not close to what usged understands.
Name one other time in US History when taxes were cut in a time of war?

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 09:31 AM
Sorry, Clinton's unemployment was at 3.4% when bush took office, 5% is an INCREASE of about 30%. Some spur.

WRONG again. It was at 4.2%. I linked the actual data and you STILL got it wrong.

Again, you are comparing the PEAK prior to the tech bubble bursting and pretending we would be able to sustain those levels.

Second, you are comparing the PEAK to a RECESSION... again look at the data... once the country came out of the recession, unemployment in 2006-07 was back around 4.4%.... until the economy started sagging again in mid 07.

Next, the unemployment rate is a LAGGING indicator. We will be out of this current recession for months prior to the unemployment rate ticking down.

If you want to cherry pick numbers, compare Bush's first five months to Obamas.... unemployment went from 4.2 to 4.6 under Bush.... an increase of about 9.5%. Under Obama it went from 8.1 to 9.4... an increase of 16%.

OMG Bush is better than Obama!!! See how stupid it is to cherry pick data like that?

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 09:33 AM
Econbrowser
Analysis of current economic conditions and policy

August 03, 2009
Comparing the Current Recession and the "1980-82 Recession"

At least one observer has argued that the current recession is not as bad as that of the 1980-82 recession, when those two separate recessions (1980Q1-1980Q3; 1981Q3-1982Q4) are considered as one (see [1] [2]). Here is my interpretation of this assertion, updated to use the latest GDP data, and normalizing (log) GDP on the recession start dates.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/08/mull11.gif

Notice that, using the WSJ mean survey forecast from early July, the current downturn will exact a bigger (percentage) output loss than the 1980Q1-1982Q4 recession; if we assume the current recession trough ends up being 2009Q2, then the cumulative loss relative to previous peak will be 9.6 percentage points, while that for the "1980-82 recession" will be 2.5 percentage points.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/08/comparing_the_c.html

Jarod
08-26-2009, 09:33 AM
Robert Reich is probably the biggest lefty economist of all, even he knows tax cuts work.
He's for stimulus big time and argues against the false all or nothing tax cut card the turbo-libs flaunt too much.
When pinned down he knows what we know, taxed at 10% not 20% the average Joe spends more.

Who around her ever said tax cuts never work? It is not black and white like you seem to belive. IN some situations tax cuts work... in some they dont! Hell, if we cut taxes to 0, would that work?

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 09:34 AM
Name one other time in US History when taxes were cut in a time of war?

Did the economy pick up steam after those cuts or not? Yes, it did.

That said, tax cuts WILL increase economic activity in the short term. In the long term, you must have corresponding spending cuts to make the tax cuts sustainable. This is where Bush failed completely.

Topspin
08-26-2009, 09:35 AM
Name one other time in US History when taxes were cut in a time of war?

Name a time when you spend less when your taxes are cut.
Save the turbo-lib talking points, it's bullshit.

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 09:38 AM
they spurred economic activity that reduced unemployment to less than 5%

this is partially incorrect. While they did help economic activity and they did reduce the unemployment rate, they did not get unemployment back under 5%. The insane practices in the mortgage markets (where government, wall street, the mortgage industry and individuals all share the blame) are what falsely stimulated the economy to the point where unemployment finally dipped back under 5% in 2006/07.

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 09:41 AM
unemployment was only 7.5% in the 80 recession.

Topspin
08-26-2009, 09:43 AM
what was inflation?

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 09:44 AM
Something else I found interesting while reading about the 80 recession.

The recession came at a particularly bad time for banks due to a recent wave of deregulation. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) had phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (raising the problem of moral hazard).[8] Banks rushed into real estate lending, speculative lending, and other ventures just as the economy soured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession

Topspin
08-26-2009, 09:51 AM
Inflation (1)

1979 11.3%
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2

Topspin
08-26-2009, 09:51 AM
shouldn't it be Reagan's recession?

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 09:54 AM
Inflation (1)

1979 11.3%
1980 13.5
1981 10.3
1982 6.2

The main reason for the 80 recession was the fed clamping down on the money supply to get inflation under control.

Well that and having to bail out the banks and S&l because of deregulation.

Topspin
08-26-2009, 09:59 AM
wasn't Ronnie in when GDP actually went down?

Mott the Hoople
08-26-2009, 10:00 AM
Who around her ever said tax cuts never work? It is not black and white like you seem to belive. IN some situations tax cuts work... in some they dont! Hell, if we cut taxes to 0, would that work?That's not the point. The point is, is that our society has a tacit social contract in time of war. The monied class provides the treasure and the middle/working classes provide the blood. The right wing of the Republican party, in the example provided by the Bush administration, wanted to have it's cake and eat it to by violating that social contract. They desired that the monied class (the capitalist class if you will) would provide neither treasure or blood for that war and attempted to shift the cost of war, both in blood and treasure, onto others. This, at the least is unethical and at worst is immoral.

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 10:01 AM
wasn't Ronnie in when GDP actually went down?

Drove my Chevy to the levy and the levy was dry.

Mott the Hoople
08-26-2009, 10:01 AM
Did the economy pick up steam after those cuts or not? Yes, it did.

That said, tax cuts WILL increase economic activity in the short term. In the long term, you must have corresponding spending cuts to make the tax cuts sustainable. This is where Bush failed completely.
Agreed.

Mott the Hoople
08-26-2009, 10:03 AM
Name a time when you spend less when your taxes are cut.
Save the turbo-lib talking points, it's bullshit.Cutting taxes for the wealthy in time of war is not about economics. It's about ethics and morality. War is not business and should never be conducted as such.

DamnYankee
08-26-2009, 10:05 AM
Cutting taxes in a time of war, (unprecidented) was a huge mistake that helped put us here where we are today! That's simply your uneducated and liberal-biased opinion.

Topspin
08-26-2009, 10:09 AM
turbo-libs don't give a shit about the war except as they could damage mcfossil in the run up to the election. Now you can hear a pin drop with all the anti-war false outrage gone.

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 10:24 AM
Cutting taxes for the wealthy in time of war is not about economics. It's about ethics and morality. War is not business and should never be conducted as such.

The tax cuts were across the board. Note: The lower tax brackets saw a higher percentage of decrease than the higher tax brackets. The bottom 50% of income earners saw their tax burden decrease relative to the top half. But the left loves to ignore this and point out that in terms of actual dollars, 'da wealthy gots all the tax breaks'. While in terms of dollars that is true, one must ask WHY? Could it be because the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of all income taxes? Is that why in real dollar terms they don't seem to 'get much' when you have INCOME tax cuts?

If you are paying zero in income taxes... you should not expect a large check when income taxes are cut.

TuTu Monroe
08-26-2009, 01:05 PM
Sorry, Clinton's unemployment was at 3.4% when bush took office, 5% is an INCREASE of about 30%. Some spur.

I believe you are wrong on the unemployment rate. It was a faux economy in the Clinton era and then the bubble burst, just in time to hand it over to Bush. 500,000 jobs were outsourced before Clinton left office.

Cancel5
08-26-2009, 01:59 PM
I believe you are wrong on the unemployment rate. It was a faux economy in the Clinton era and then the bubble burst, just in time to hand it over to Bush. 500,000 jobs were outsourced before Clinton left office.
A faux economy! ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 02:39 PM
That is pretty funny.

But along those lines how many jobs were outsourced under Bush?

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 02:43 PM
A faux economy! ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Consider this....

1) Enron fraud
2) World Com fraud
3) Qwest fraud
4) Global Crossing fraud
5) Health South fraud
6) Negative earnings on numerous stocks that ran up 100%+
7) Artificially low oil prices

While it was not all a fake, there was a lot of the run up that was indeed based on fraud and misguided investment principles.

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 02:45 PM
Yep mostly as the result of deregulation.

PostmodernProphet
08-26-2009, 02:56 PM
Yep mostly as the result of deregulation.

so you are agreeing with him that the economic gains during the Clinton administration was caused by fraud, misguided investments and deregulation?......

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 04:01 PM
so you are agreeing with him that the economic gains during the Clinton administration was caused by fraud, misguided investments and deregulation?......

Yes I have always maintained that the dereg caused problems all the way back to at least Reagan.
Dereg enabled a lot of fraud. And corrupt congress people on both sides covered for it.

Per my research other than the inflation the causes of the 1980 recession were similar to todays recession. Dereg and greed enabled to go wild because of dereg.
The bailouts were even similiar just a lot smaller. I am not sure we can withstand another one of these.


You think I hold clowntoon on a pedestal? you are wrong.
Only Mr. Peabody redsides on that pedestal.

PostmodernProphet
08-26-2009, 04:42 PM
Yes I have always maintained that the dereg caused problems all the way back to at least Reagan.
Dereg enabled a lot of fraud. And corrupt congress people on both sides covered for it.

Per my research other than the inflation the causes of the 1980 recession were similar to todays recession. Dereg and greed enabled to go wild because of dereg.
The bailouts were even similiar just a lot smaller. I am not sure we can withstand another one of these.


You think I hold clowntoon on a pedestal? you are wrong.
Only Mr. Peabody redsides on that pedestal.

it's just that admitting the economy was not as good as it has been claimed seems inconsistent with your previous comments about the Clinton economy.....

cawacko
08-26-2009, 06:01 PM
It is laughable the idea that if the government has tighter control over the economy there is less fraud. Travel or do business overseas much?

TuTu Monroe
08-26-2009, 06:21 PM
A faux economy! ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yeah, it was overheated and had to come down, you dork. Oink! Oink!

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 09:29 PM
it's just that admitting the economy was not as good as it has been claimed seems inconsistent with your previous comments about the Clinton economy.....

The economy was much better for the working class under Clowntoon. Better wage increases, lower unemployment, etc.

It was not however better for the longterm as I stated then as well.

uscitizen
08-26-2009, 09:31 PM
It is laughable the idea that if the government has tighter control over the economy there is less fraud. Travel or do business overseas much?

Laughable huh?

If you are highly regulated and your books audited by the govt perodically your fraud and corruption level will drop.
I do not recall an big scandals form the public utilities back when they were pretty highly regulated. Just good solid investment companies that everyone wanted in their portfolios.

If you are unregulated and not audited well what is to stop you from a bit of creative bookkeeping and pushing the envelope.

belme1201
08-27-2009, 02:22 AM
WRONG again.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

Unemployment was sub 5% under Bush for all of 2006 and 2007 and the first couple of months of 2008.

yes, unemployment spiked during the first couple of years of Bush do the the dot com/tech/telecom bubbles bursting and the recession that resulted from that, but when the economy recovered, so did the employment numbers.

Same thing is occurring now.

But bush's numbers never reached those passed to him at the end of the Clinton term.

belme1201
08-27-2009, 02:45 AM
I believe you are wrong on the unemployment rate. It was a faux economy in the Clinton era and then the bubble burst, just in time to hand it over to Bush. 500,000 jobs were outsourced before Clinton left office.

I stand corrected, from memory I used a number Clinton had achieved earlier in the year the number at the time of the bush transition was 4%, still an unemployment number bush was never able to achieve in the next 8 years, and an increase of not quite double(4%-7.6%) at the end of his 8 years. If you compare job growth under the 2 men, the difference is even greater.
More evidence Supply Side is rubbish.

The ultimate economy for a working man is a regular check to cash to provide for his family, that is not a "faux economy". Looking for a job and not getting as much as you made before, if you are lucky, is the reality of the bush economy. I believe bush and Clinton had the same 8 years in office to achieve their goals. I also believe that bush did achieve his goals and few benefitted by plan.

Topspin
08-27-2009, 05:03 AM
I stand corrected, from memory I used a number Clinton had achieved earlier in the year the number at the time of the bush transition was 4%, still an unemployment number bush was never able to achieve in the next 8 years, and an increase of not quite double(4%-7.6%) at the end of his 8 years. If you compare job growth under the 2 men, the difference is even greater.
More evidence Supply Side is rubbish.

The ultimate economy for a working man is a regular check to cash to provide for his family, that is not a "faux economy". Looking for a job and not getting as much as you made before, if you are lucky, is the reality of the bush economy. I believe bush and Clinton had the same 8 years in office to achieve their goals. I also believe that bush did achieve his goals and few benefitted by plan.


I'm going out on a limb and say you weren't a business school graduate?

Cancel 2016.2
08-27-2009, 07:46 AM
I stand corrected, from memory I used a number Clinton had achieved earlier in the year the number at the time of the bush transition was 4%, still an unemployment number bush was never able to achieve in the next 8 years, and an increase of not quite double(4%-7.6%) at the end of his 8 years. If you compare job growth under the 2 men, the difference is even greater.
More evidence Supply Side is rubbish.

The ultimate economy for a working man is a regular check to cash to provide for his family, that is not a "faux economy". Looking for a job and not getting as much as you made before, if you are lucky, is the reality of the bush economy. I believe bush and Clinton had the same 8 years in office to achieve their goals. I also believe that bush did achieve his goals and few benefitted by plan.

Again, you are comparing a time of economic BOOM to a period that included TWO recessions. Part of the reason for the second recession is the fact that Clinton eliminated Glass Steagall. As for the first recession, that began while Clinton was still in office. The fact that Bush inherited that (just as Obama inherited the current one) seems to escape you.

You are also incorrect in stating that Bush didn't get the unemployment back down. AGAIN, if you would actually look at the data you would most likely stop making incorrect statements from memory.

belme1201
08-27-2009, 08:25 AM
I'm going out on a limb and say you weren't a business school graduate?

......and I'm going out on a limb to say you've never graduated anything, save
perhaps, kindergarten? Now, if you've got anything worth saying in response to the post, do so if you're capable.

Jarod
08-27-2009, 08:31 AM
Again, you are comparing a time of economic BOOM to a period that included TWO recessions. Part of the reason for the second recession is the fact that Clinton eliminated Glass Steagall. As for the first recession, that began while Clinton was still in office. The fact that Bush inherited that (just as Obama inherited the current one) seems to escape you.

You are also incorrect in stating that Bush didn't get the unemployment back down. AGAIN, if you would actually look at the data you would most likely stop making incorrect statements from memory.

I congradulate you on being one of the few conservatives to admit that President Obama inherited this recession.

belme1201
08-27-2009, 08:36 AM
Again, you are comparing a time of economic BOOM to a period that included TWO recessions. Part of the reason for the second recession is the fact that Clinton eliminated Glass Steagall. As for the first recession, that began while Clinton was still in office. The fact that Bush inherited that (just as Obama inherited the current one) seems to escape you.

You are also incorrect in stating that Bush didn't get the unemployment back down. AGAIN, if you would actually look at the data you would most likely stop making incorrect statements from memory.

Let me ask again, what was the number on the day bush took office and what was the lowest point he was able to reach thereafter? A simple question. Use your own BLS link.
Are my figures, day 1-4%, end of term-7.6% correct? What % of increase is that? All the excuses and winnowing can't change the numbers.
Perhaps you would like to show with historical numbers, the magic of Supply Side Ecomomics.
Would you like to compare, also, the depth of the recession bush inherited as compared to the recession he passed off to Obama? A bit like comparing a burp to an appendectomy, no?

belme1201
08-27-2009, 09:09 AM
Again, you are comparing a time of economic BOOM to a period that included TWO recessions. Part of the reason for the second recession is the fact that Clinton eliminated Glass Steagall. As for the first recession, that began while Clinton was still in office. The fact that Bush inherited that (just as Obama inherited the current one) seems to escape you.

You are also incorrect in stating that Bush didn't get the unemployment back down. AGAIN, if you would actually look at the data you would most likely stop making incorrect statements from memory.

Clinton "eliminated" Glass-Steagall? Let me point out that the authors of the bill repealing it, passed by the GOP Congress, were three GOP bank lobby lackeys headed by the financial guru, Sen. Phil Gramm(R-TX). I agree, Clinton shouldn't have signed it, but I thought I'd clarify your accidental omission.
I should add, not surprising, that former Senator Gramm is now a million dollar executive with UBS, the much loved Swiss bank subject to the relaxation of rules Gramm authored.

uscitizen
08-27-2009, 10:26 AM
Clinton "eliminated" Glass-Steagall? Let me point out that the authors of the bill repealing it, passed by the GOP Congress, were three GOP bank lobby lackys headed by the financial guru, Sen. Phil Gramm(R-TX). I agree, Clinton shouldn't have signed it, but I thought I'd clarify your accidental omission.
I should add, not surprising, that former Senator Graham is now a million dollar executive with UBS, the much loved Swiss bank subject to the relaxation of rules Gramm authored.

Of course thate can be no relationship to the deregulation and Grahm's current job. :rolleyes:

evince
08-27-2009, 11:11 AM
Maybe Clinton got convinced of glass steagals need to be eliminated.

He was wrong and the Bush team and the gop congress was wrong to ignore for years the adverse impact of its removal.

They stood and appluaded while the country sank.

Its one thing to think something is a good idea and another not to do anything when the idea is proved wrong by the facts on the ground

uscitizen
08-27-2009, 11:13 AM
Maybe Clinton got convinced of glass steagals need to be eliminated.

He was wrong and the Bush team and the gop congress was wrong to ignore for years the adverse impact of its removal.

They stood and appluaded while the country sank.

Its one thing to think something is a good idea and another not to do anything when the idea is proved wrong by the facts on the ground


they applauded just as long as it was only biting the little guys butt. When it started biting theirs Bush got up and yelled armegeddon if we do not bail out the finiancial institutions. We need a few trillion of your tax dollars.