Rick Perry, the George W. Bush of this election?

Yurt said:
did i say it wasn't important? you really shouldn't run around telling others they have reading comprehension issues....:)
Click to expand...

You said it wasn't a large factor, which couldn't be more wrong. You really don't know shite about the economy.
 
Onceler said:
You said it wasn't a huge factor, which couldn't be more wrong. You really don't know shite about the economy.
Click to expand...

answer my question, did i say it wasn't important? yes or no. simple.

there are times it can be a big factor, but you're acting as if it is the primary factor. you're over simplifying economic issues. but i understand, you need to feel really smart.
 
Onceler said:
I have also said that the stimulus didn't produce the jobs anticipated. That doesn't mean it didn't produce any jobs, as you repeatedly state, or disappear down a black hole, as you repeatedly state. As for "stemming the bleeding," here's a quick primer on the economy: jobs are a lagging indicator. It stemmed the bleeding in the market. In case you didn't notice, it's when the market crashed that businesses panicked & started laying off in droves. Once the market started to turn around, businesses started to slowly follow suit later on, though there is still a strong crisis in confidence.

You don't agree w/ the bailouts, which is the reason for your narrative on GM. The fact is, they worked - GM not only survived, but is doing well. I don't need to add anything to that argument. Sorry you were wrong about how effective the bailouts would be.
Click to expand...
Like I said- you are a pathetic apologist. The market selloff due to banking collapse followed approximately the same pattern of every other market crisis since the 50s, whether there was a stimulus or not. The crisis of 1987 saw a 30% decline, and a subsequent return of value over a period of time approximately 10 times as long as the period of selloff. The crisis of 2002 - same thing. Overall it was shorter lived, but of the same pattern. And the crisis of 2008 has followed the SAME pattern. The period of selloff was longer, and the subsequent return to value is taking longer, but it is the same essential pattern. There is no statistical data to indicate the stimulus "stopped the hemorrhage" as you claim. The market continued to decline, then made a slow and very hesitant recovery. Any difference in the general pattern of how market crises behave is recovery to previous value is taking too long, and has since been interrupted by yet another crisis, primarily brought about by the very spending you are lauding as our savior.

And facts don't lie. Apologists, however, are very good at lying, to themselves and to others. The bailouts did NOT work or GM would not have had to go through chapter 11. That is very simple. The PURPOSE of the bailouts, as advertised, was to prevent GM from having to go through bankruptcy. The liberal democrats claimed bankruptcy would destroy GM. Just how "effective" is an action which does not prevent the event it was supposed to prevent? Seriously? When someone does something for a specified purpose, and that purpose FAILS, how can you then claim the action was SUCCESSFUL? Your position is completely unsupported by the facts.

It was not until GM went through CH11 and their debt load was restructured to be manageable that the corporation was able to start their road to recovery. Yes, GM is doing well now, because DEBT RESTRUCTURING under BANKRUPTCY LAWS has allowed them to continue operations and start to pay off the restructured debt.

You are, quite literally, the most pathetic apologist in the history of political BBS.
 
Good Luck said:
Like I said- you are a pathetic apologist. The market selloff due to banking collapse followed approximately the same pattern of every other market crisis since the 50s, whether there was a stimulus or not. The crisis of 1987 saw a 30% decline, and a subsequent return of value over a period of time approximately 10 times as long as the period of selloff. The crisis of 2002 - same thing. Overall it was shorter lived, but of the same pattern. And the crisis of 2008 has followed the SAME pattern. The period of selloff was longer, and the subsequent return to value is taking longer, but it is the same essential pattern. There is no statistical data to indicate the stimulus "stopped the hemorrhage" as you claim. The market continued to decline, then made a slow and very hesitant recovery. Any difference in the general pattern of how market crises behave is recovery to previous value is taking too long, and has since been interrupted by yet another crisis, primarily brought about by the very spending you are lauding as our savior.

And facts don't lie. Apologists, however, are very good at lying, to themselves and to others. The bailouts did NOT work or GM would not have had to go through chapter 11. That is very simple. The PURPOSE of the bailouts, as advertised, was to prevent GM from having to go through bankruptcy. The liberal democrats claimed bankruptcy would destroy GM. Just how "effective" is an action which does not prevent the event it was supposed to prevent? Seriously? When someone does something for a specified purpose, and that purpose FAILS, how can you then claim the action was SUCCESSFUL? Your position is completely unsupported by the facts.

It was not until GM went through CH11 and their debt load was restructured to be manageable that the corporation was able to start their road to recovery. Yes, GM is doing well now, because DEBT RESTRUCTURING under BANKRUPTCY LAWS has allowed them to continue operations and start to pay off the restructured debt.

You are, quite literally, the most pathetic apologist in the history of political BBS.
Click to expand...

Another exaggeration. Your posts are very predictable. You put the cart before the horse; you start from a perspective of needing to prove an ideology or action wrong, and then work whatever argument you're making around that, as opposed to looking at real reasons & causes.

You didn't believe in the bailout, so of course it couldn't work. You didn't believe in the stimulus, so of course it disappeared down a black hole & didn't create jobs. You're conservative, so of course it's the liberals who are idiots & apologists.
 
Onceler said:
Another exaggeration. Your posts are very predictable. You put the cart before the horse; you start from a perspective of needing to prove an ideology or action wrong, and then work whatever argument you're making around that, as opposed to looking at real reasons & causes.

You didn't believe in the bailout, so of course it couldn't work. You didn't believe in the stimulus, so of course it disappeared down a black hole & didn't create jobs. You're conservative, so of course it's the liberals who are idiots & apologists.
Click to expand...
Give it a rest, apologist. It does not matter what political philosophy is held by a person when they do a statistical analysis. You can perform a Cochran Q test on the three latest market crises yourself, and you will come out with the same results I did. The Q difference between the latest crisis and the previous two is less than 16%, a result which is both statistically insignificant AND a difference which shows LESS apparent influence on market pattern behavior in the latest crisis than previous ones. In short, the numbers don't lie. You can continue your claims all you want, but the facts speak a different story which you are ignoring in favor of your political preconceptions, while, quite hypocritically, accusing others of doing the same.

Ditto with the GM bailouts. Unless you can explain how an action which FAILED in its purpose can still be called successful, you are only blowing apologist smoke. The hard facts are in direct opposition to your claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top