Question for Double Dippers....

Jarod said:
Ill answer your question, even though you did not answer mine, and I asked mine first....!


No, I will not blame President Obama, just like I dont give him credit for the improving economy. Sure he may have had some small effect on it thus far, but not much... It took almost 7 years of Bush poison for his poor economic policies to hit the economy, Id say it would take at least that for President Obama's policies to improve it.
Click to expand...
Yep...7 years of "full employment", and a growing economy, in the face of the worst attack on the US that the country has ever seem....until his party lost Congress
 
Topspin said:
good thing you went to law school, you'd starve on your economics knowledge. Over paying trillions to buy a way less than average recovery is nothing to boast about.
Click to expand...

I know that is the party line, but when you study history, its not what happens.

Reagan spend vast amounts of money for his time.... afterward we enjoyed huge economic prosparity for many years.

Paying trillions to recover at all from the second worse recession ever is worth it.

A less than average recovery is good for a much worse than average recession.

Hell, a double dip was predicted by many, and now that it did not happen, the same people are complaining that its a worse than average recovery? Seriously? Really?
 
bravo said:
Yep...7 years of "full employment", and a growing economy, in the face of the worst attack on the US that the country has ever seem....until his party lost Congress
Click to expand...

fyi..... 2002, 2003 and 2008 were not at full employment. Historically, 5% is the rate we define as 'full' employment, though some use 5.5%. I was generous and let you have the higher of those two. Otherwise, 2004 (5.53%) was also not at full employment.
 
Onceler said:
We already know your rules. They go something like this: the economy under Bush was decent for 7 years, and he gets the credit for that. But it crashed in his last year, which wasn't his fault at all, and was all on Barney Frank.

So, if the economy is bad now, it's all Obama; but I'm sure if it turns at all, it will be the GOP Congress.
Click to expand...

LOL, in a nutshell. :D
 
Damn Yankee said:
So you don't blame wild government spending for making the economy suck?
Click to expand...

Not that alone. You see its a much more complex deal than that.

Wild spending is in fact necessary sometimes, but when its done in conjunction with lopsided tax cuts for the mega rich, the money gets concentrated in one place and the economy goes to shit. (Thats a very simple explination for a much more complex topic.) What Bush did, was go wild with spending, but only into one or two sectors that enriched even further already rich people, then he drastically cut those people's taxes. WHen money does not get spread around, or stuck in one place, the economy goes to shit!
 
bravo said:
Yep...7 years of "full employment", and a growing economy, in the face of the worst attack on the US that the country has ever seem....until his party lost Congress
Click to expand...

You are the most hilarious Bush apologist I have ever seen; your understanding of economics is paper-thin.

Why are you so loyal to that guy, anyway? He's a failed Prez, bravs...nothing you parrot on a message board will change that.
 
The stock market started to tank when it became obvious that Obama would win. I'll give the smart money the credit for knowing his true socialst bent. Recessions come and go, we don't normally pay trillions to get out of them.
Bragging that we didn't double dip when the future tax payers are being raped to guarantee that is most centanly not a sign of what a majority of economist would call good stewardship.
 
Superfreak said:
fyi..... 2002, 2003 and 2008 were not at full employment. Historically, 5% is the rate we define as 'full' employment, though some use 5.5%. I was generous and let you have the higher of those two. Otherwise, 2004 (5.53%) was also not at full employment.
Click to expand...

You trying to piss on my leg and tell me its rainin'....???

How about an average of 5.26% from 2001 to 2008

In spite of losing Congress, WTC attacks, and 2 wars.....
 
Topspin said:
The stock market started to tank when it became obvious that Obama would win. I'll give the smart money the credit for knowing his true socialst bent. Recessions come and go, we don't normally pay trillions to get out of them.
Bragging that we didn't double dip when the future tax payers are being raped to guarantee that is most centanly not a sign of what a majority of economist would call good stewardship.
Click to expand...

The market peaked in October of 2007 and started its decline. As oil prices spiked to insane, economically unsustainable levels and the financial crisis widened, the market decline began to escalate. It had nothing to do with Obama being presumed to win the election.

That said, the financial bailout in terms of dollars was fine. The question is.... where the fuck did the money go that was supposedly 'repaid'???? I don't mind spending a trillion if we were paid back that trillion. The morons in DC claim we have been paid back most of TARP, yet... no sign of that money.

The stimulus... it was delivered in a manner that made it only a stop gap. In my opinion it should have been a stop gap combined with longer term stimulus in the form of infrastructure buildout. They fucked that up (IMO).

The ongoing 'let's keep the deficit spending at trillion plus' is nothing more than complete bullshit. It is leading to our economic ruin. At the current pace, the total national debt will exceed $20 TRILLION by the end of the decade.
 
Will anyone praise or criticize the chairman of the federal reserve. He is after all in charge of the economy.
 
Superfreak said:
The ongoing 'let's keep the deficit spending at trillion plus' is nothing more than complete bullshit. It is leading to our economic ruin. At the current pace, the total national debt will exceed $20 TRILLION by the end of the decade.
Click to expand...

Deficit spending is having a positive economic impact. If you want a good look at where austerity leads just take a look at the Brits and the Irish. You're practically begging for a double dip.

And if you really gave a shit about deficits you wouldn't have supported extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, but you did. There are two sides to the deficit equation.
 
bravo said:
You trying to piss on my leg and tell me its rainin'....???

How about an average of 5.26% from 2001 to 2008

In spite of losing Congress, WTC attacks, and 2 wars.....
Click to expand...

That is not the point I was addressing. You stated there were seven years of full employment. There were not. Now you change your statement to discuss the average. That is all well and good. The average was indeed 5.27% (you rounded wrong).

Now... does that average change the fact that we did not have seven years of full employment? No, it does not. So simply changing your argument's parameters doesn't change the fact that you were wrong on your initial point.

Also, Bush losing congress had little effect on unemployment. The unemployment increase in 2008 was a direct result of the financial crisis. While both parties are certainly culpable for the financial mess, the election in 2006 was not the cause.

Two wars, while expensive, actually HELP the employment situation as those that are Nat Guard that went to Iraq/Afghanistan had their jobs here in need of replacements.
 
The chairman of the federal reserve is actively trying to devalue are currency. This will encourage exports as well as pump a lot of money into the economy.
 
Topspin said:
The stock market started to tank when it became obvious that Obama would win. I'll give the smart money the credit for knowing his true socialst bent. Recessions come and go, we don't normally pay trillions to get out of them.
Bragging that we didn't double dip when the future tax payers are being raped to guarantee that is most centanly not a sign of what a majority of economist would call good stewardship.
Click to expand...

Funny, then why did it start going up just after his inaguration?
 
All of you so called economists on this board dont understand deficate spending and its potential benefits.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Deficit spending is having a positive economic impact. If you want a good look at where austerity leads just take a look at the Brits and the Irish. You're practically begging for a double dip.

And if you really gave a shit about deficits you wouldn't have supported extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, but you did. There are two sides to the deficit equation.
Click to expand...

Deficit spending is a useful tool during a recession. But like any tool, if it is used improperly it can also be detrimental. There is absolutely NO need to be outspending revenue by $1.5 trillion dollars this year. It is the complete lack fiscal responsibility coming from DC that is going to destroy this economy.

As for the tax cuts. Extending them does not increase the deficit. It keeps revenue neutral. By your logic, we should just keep raising taxes to keep up with the insane levels of spending in DC. That is moronic.

We have to take some of the pain now or it is going to be far worse when the shit hits the fan like it has in Europe.

There is NO reason we should be spending 50% higher than it was in 2006 and keeping it at those levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top