How the Democrats Nearly Destroyed the Economy

\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
When you say, "most", how many respondents to the Liability National Survey of Economics are we talking about?


It's also curious that these businesses that report their results to you on a weekly basis use the last quarter of the Bush administration as their benchmark. Was that date chosen for any particular reason?


I'm not sure how a rational individual would conclude that this nonscientific "report" of yours contradicts the CBO, which is a nonpartisan agency composed primarily of economists and public policy analysts. About three-quarters of its professional staff hold advanced degrees, mostly in economics or public policy.


Are you familiar with the term "anecdotal evidence", Liability?
Click to expand...

Not just Bush, but Bush, and a democrat congress.

Working hand and hand together.
 
Liberty said:
Not just Bush, but Bush, and a democrat congress. Working hand and hand together.
Click to expand...



Fascinating.



Are you planning to address these points, Liability, or is the issue too complex for you?



When you say, "most", how many respondents to the Liability National Survey of Economics are we talking about?


It's also curious that these businesses that report their results to you on a weekly basis use the last quarter of the Bush administration as their benchmark. Was that date chosen for any particular reason?


I'm not sure how a rational individual would conclude that this nonscientific "report" of yours contradicts the CBO, which is a nonpartisan agency composed primarily of economists and public policy analysts. About three-quarters of its professional staff hold advanced degrees, mostly in economics or public policy.


Are you familiar with the term "anecdotal evidence", Liability?
 
Add TARP, QE1, QE2, Stimulus 1 and 2, and the evidence that Democrats are destroying the US economy is overwhelming.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
evidence....is someone looking for evidence?.....http://www.bls.gov/cps/
Click to expand...



Isn't that cute? Liability's lying lil' brother leaps to his love's defense.


I have a couple of questions for the lying PiMP.


1. Which of these first quarter CBO estimates does your May non-farm payroll citation address? Apparently you think May is 1st quarter.

CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2011:



  • raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent,
  • Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
  • Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million, and
  • Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).



2. Perhaps you can explain why you believe that BLS figures are valid but CBO stats aren't.


Jesus, you're an ignorant fucker.
 
webbway said:
"Reckless Endangerment" utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed — when is there not? But it was government distortions of markets — not "unregulated capitalism" — that led the economy to disaster.
Click to expand...
This is the focal statement of the entire analysis of the crisis of 2008. However, while it was, indeed, government regulation and deliberate distortions of the credit market, it was not the democrats working alone to achieve the house of cards that nearly collapsed the economy (and will, someday, if we don't substantially change our ways). Both democratic and republican administrations - and congresses - have been working on the same theme since slightly before WWI. And that theme has been to use credit economy to grow the economy. Through the years the federal government has used various means to expand the credit market, so more people can use credit to buy stuff, which in turn creates demand, which increases production, creating the need for more labor, which creates jobs, etc.etc. All fine and dandy until the credit market becomes saturated, and we fall into recession as people, through necessity, diminish spending in order to pay off their debt. We can look at economic cycles through the past 9 decades, and see every time the credit market reaches a new plateau. And the reaction from the government, each time credit hits a plateau, is to write new banking regulations requiring more lending into lower economic strata, and to ease other banking regulations so that the higher risk lending practices can be workable.

The latest crisis was the direct result of these same policies. The credit market happened to be the housing market. But the cause was directly related to "fair lending" regulations which literally required banks to issue mortgages to people they knew full well did not have the means to meet their obligations. Easing the banking regulations so that high risk mortgages could be packaged into "investments" and sold off, indeed, made the situation worse, like throwing gas on a fire, but the fire itself was already smoldering. The simplest way to put it is if those banks had been issuing safer mortgages, then selling said mortgages off to generate revenue for more SAFE mortgages would not have ended in crisis. People would have paid their mortgage payments, (mostly - there have always been a certain percentage of defaults), banks would have gotten their money by selling their mortgages, the investment brokers buying those mortgages would have gotten their money because the people would have been paying, and everyone is winning.

But the reality is those high risk mortgages resulted in a sudden drastic increase in the number of defaults. Suddenly the banks and investment brokers were NOT getting their money back. because the rate of defaults overwhelmed the built-in cushion of fees and interest rates that lenders have to account for defaulted loans. And THAT is what caused the crisis. It was magnified by the other factors, but the BASE cause was defaulted loans.

And the SOURCE of the defaulted loans was the government regulations which required loans be made in high risk areas. Government interfered with the market to artificially stimulate economic growth, and the result was (and still is) disaster.

Sadly, very few seem to have learned a damned thing. Government's response is still to interfere and try to artificially stimulate economic growth through government spending and interference with the credit markets. The only place we're going is into another crisis - and it does not matter which flavor of politicians are in the hot seat when it happens, as their policies, though different, all have the same unsupportable goal of continued artificial stimulation of economic growth through credit.
 
Yeah, the GOP wants to let the free market run wild by removing all those bothersome consumer protections, don't they?

politico.jpg
​
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
2. Perhaps you can explain why you believe that BLS figures are valid but CBO stats aren't.
Click to expand...

since unemployment is still nearly twice as high as the day Obama took office I cannot credit any claim he has reduced unemployment......the CBO stats are obviously wrong.....I will leave it to you to speculate why......I merely point to the what......
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
The U.S. economy grew in the first quarter at a pace that beat previous government estimates...
​
Click to expand...


and were the previous government estimates that the US economy sucks?..........if your point is, the US economy sucks slightly less than it did last month we have no argument......​
 
PostmodernProphet said:
since unemployment is still nearly twice as high as the day Obama took office I cannot credit any claim he has reduced unemployment......the CBO stats are obviously wrong.....I will leave it to you to speculate why......I merely point to the what......
Click to expand...



You leave it to me to speculate why because you admit you have no means of proving your assertions?


Nice debating tactic. Does it work for you?


BTW, have you come up with a way to explain why you thought May figures from BLS contradict 1st quarter figures from CBO, or are you leaving that up to me too?
 
Liberty said:
You're such a marxist.
Click to expand...



Do you have any fact-based rebuttal, Liability?




Yes, or no?




Here are the points you claim are inaccurate:





CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2011:



  • raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent,
  • Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
  • Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million, and
  • Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).
 
Damn Yankee said:
Liberals are so dumb that can't see how their policies have destroyed industry, the housing market, and social security. Even a fifth grader could understand simple cause-and-effect.
Click to expand...



Dumb Yankee is so dumb he that he can't rebut the CBO, which he claims a fifth-grader could do.




CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2011:


  • raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent,
  • Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
  • Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million, and
  • Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).




http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2204
 
Was it free market forces that put the housing industry in crisis? Only an ignorant fool would believe such. The housing market bubble was created by government interference. For several consecutive administrations, OFFICIAL policy was aimed at "putting more families in their own homes" to quote a statement made by Clinton at one time. When the government deliberately increases demand in a market it creates a market bubble. Prices rise dramatically in response to the increased demand. The primary reason housing prices skyrocketed in the 80s was due to federal policies. The reason the government pushed for law requiring lending in low income areas was in response to the skyrocketing prices, which the government itself was responsible for.

Bottom line: when the government interferes, we are no longer talking about free market forces. We are talking about government policies SCREWING UP market forces.
 
Good Luck said:
Was it free market forces that put the housing industry in crisis? Only an ignorant fool would believe such. The housing market bubble was created by government interference. For several consecutive administrations, OFFICIAL policy was aimed at "putting more families in their own homes" to quote a statement made by Clinton at one time. When the government deliberately increases demand in a market it creates a market bubble. Prices rise dramatically in response to the increased demand. The primary reason housing prices skyrocketed in the 80s was due to federal policies. The reason the government pushed for law requiring lending in low income areas was in response to the skyrocketing prices, which the government itself was responsible for. Bottom line: when the government interferes, we are no longer talking about free market forces. We are talking about government policies SCREWING UP market forces.
Click to expand...



Bottom line: Good Suck fails to substantiate his opinion with any verifiable facts, and so fails to convince.
 
\(\(\(\/)/)/)/ said:
Do you have any fact-based rebuttal, Liability?




Yes, or no?




Here are the points you claim are inaccurate:





CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2011:



  • raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent,
  • Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
  • Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million, and
  • Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).
Click to expand...

You actually believe the government.

I don't believe the CBO.

Why go through the effort to find and give someone like you numbers when, you're just going to ignore them.

You're only purpose in life is to worship your god,,,, the (federal) government. Government is never to big, or oppressive for someone like you. You're a lost person when it comes to understanding how the government is destructive.
 
Good Luck said:
Was it free market forces that put the housing industry in crisis? Only an ignorant fool would believe such. The housing market bubble was created by government interference. For several consecutive administrations, OFFICIAL policy was aimed at "putting more families in their own homes" to quote a statement made by Clinton at one time. When the government deliberately increases demand in a market it creates a market bubble. Prices rise dramatically in response to the increased demand. The primary reason housing prices skyrocketed in the 80s was due to federal policies. The reason the government pushed for law requiring lending in low income areas was in response to the skyrocketing prices, which the government itself was responsible for.

Bottom line: when the government interferes, we are no longer talking about free market forces. We are talking about government policies SCREWING UP market forces.
Click to expand...

This is what Ron Paul has been saying for so many years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top